Radice v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Radice v. McGoldrick

269 A.D. 740, 54 N.Y.S.2d 769

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

DecidedApril 20, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D. 740 (Radice v. McGoldrick) 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

Radice v. McGoldrick, 269 A.D. 740, 54 N.Y.S.2d 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The questions raised on these appeals have been decided in prior cases. The claims of Peter M. Hoof filed December 12, 1935, of Gustav Hilseher filed June 15, 1937, and of Joseph Badice filed August 13, 1941, are sufficient in form as verified complaints, as was held in Matter of Rooney v. McGoldrick (255 App. Div. 844, affd. 280 N. Y. 632). The correct dates of the filing of verified complaints by the petitioners Lipari, Wabshinak and Blaney are stated in the petition. All six petitioners are entitled to receive the prevailing rate of wages from the dates of their verified complaints in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Campbell v. City of New York (291 N. Y. 461).

The 10% deduction made by the Comptroller is proper under the authority of Matter of Watson v. McGoldrick (260 App. Div. 77, mod. on other grounds 286 N. Y. 47).

The proceedings should be remitted to the Comptroller for determination of the prevailing rate of wages for' the period applicable to the complaints of petitioners Hoof and Hilseher.

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

Per Curiam.

The questions raised on these appeals have been decided in prior cases. The claims of Peter M. Hoof filed December 12, 1935, of Gustav Hilseher filed June 15, 1937, and of Joseph Badice filed August 13, 1941, are sufficient in form as verified complaints, as was held in Matter of Rooney v. McGoldrick (255 App. Div. 844, affd. 280 N. Y. 632). The correct dates of the filing of verified complaints by the petitioners Lipari, Wabshinak and Blaney are stated in the petition. All six petitioners are entitled to receive the prevailing rate of wages from the dates of their verified complaints in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Campbell v. City of New York (291 N. Y. 461).

The 10% deduction made by the Comptroller is proper under the authority of Matter of Watson v. McGoldrick (260 App. Div. 77, mod. on other grounds 286 N. Y. 47).

The proceedings should be remitted to the Comptroller for determination of the prevailing rate of wages for' the period applicable to the complaints of petitioners Hoof and Hilseher.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 740, 54 N.Y.S.2d 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radice-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack