Petersen v. City of New York

126 Misc. 326, 213 N.Y.S. 322, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 866
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 15, 1926·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As a prerequisite to the assertion of any claim against the city of New York for wages earned and not compensated, the claimant must establish that at the time he signed the payroll covering the period for which the additional wage is sought he accepted the lesser sum under protest. (Greater New York Charter, § 149.) The court below awarded judgment to the plaintiff for the full period he sued for, although for a portion of this period (fifty-four days) no. protest was noted when plaintiff signed the payroll. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reduced to the sum of $399.81, with interest and costs, the reduction representing the fifty-four days allowed by the court below which were not protested, and as modified the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Lydon, JJ.

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

Petersen v. City of New York, 126 Misc. 326, 213 N.Y.S. 322, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

126 Misc. 326 (Petersen v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steele v. City of Chattanooga
84 S.W.2d 590 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1935)