People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co.

256 A.D. 1088, 11 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6247

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 1088 (People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., 256 A.D. 1088, 11 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments of conviction of violation of sections 195 and 196 of the Labor Law unanimously affirmed. Intent is not an element to be considered in determining whether or not the statutes have been violated. (N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 64 Misc. 15; affd., without opinion, 136 App. Div. 904; affd., 199 N. Y. 108; affd., 233 U. S. 685; People v. Werner, 174 N. Y. 132; People v. Kibler, 106 id. 321; People v. Taylor, 192 id. 398; People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms-S.-D. Co., 180 App. Div. 615.) There is no basis for a holding that the Legislature intended to make any exceptions by virtue of equitable circumstances in providing for the payment of wages in cash [1089]*1089and within the stipulated period. If inability to pay were to be considered as a defense, the statutes would be rendered nugatory. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgments of conviction of violation of sections 195 and 196 of the Labor Law unanimously affirmed. Intent is not an element to be considered in determining whether or not the statutes have been violated. (N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 64 Misc. 15; affd., without opinion, 136 App. Div. 904; affd., 199 N. Y. 108; affd., 233 U. S. 685; People v. Werner, 174 N. Y. 132; People v. Kibler, 106 id. 321; People v. Taylor, 192 id. 398; People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms-S.-D. Co., 180 App. Div. 615.) There is no basis for a holding that the Legislature intended to make any exceptions by virtue of equitable circumstances in providing for the payment of wages in cash [1089]*1089and within the stipulated period. If inability to pay were to be considered as a defense, the statutes would be rendered nugatory. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1088, 11 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-primrose-wet-wash-laundry-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack