People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co.

256 A.D. 1088, 11 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6247
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 1939·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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).

256 A.D. 1088 (People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Carpenter
412 A.2d 285 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1980)
Department of Labor and Industry v. Rosen
129 A.2d 588 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
People v. D. H. Ahrend Co.
123 N.E.2d 799 (New York Court of Appeals, 1954)