Stillwaggon v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stillwaggon v. City of New York

251 A.D. 897, 297 N.Y.S. 252, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8202

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 897 (Stillwaggon v. City of New York) 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

Stillwaggon v. City of New York, 251 A.D. 897, 297 N.Y.S. 252, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs are 121 per diem employees of defendant, working as bridge painters, and they sue to recover back moneys deducted from their pay cheeks in 1934 on account of furloughs imposed by defendant under a statute authorizing such action as to each employee of defendant within the range of annual compensation received by plaintiffs. Each plaintiff alleged as a first cause of action that the statute did not apply to per diem employees, and alleged as a second cause of action that if the deductions were lawfully made, the financial position attained by the city in 1934 made the return of the deductions mandatory. At the trial the complaint was dismissed on the merits as to both causes of action. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiffs were clearly within the terms of the statute authorizing furloughs. In view of the pledging by the city of tax arrears for 1933 and earlier years against revenue bills, such arrears collected in 1934 could not be applied by the city, either legally or morally, to the financing of the budget for 1934. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Plaintiffs are 121 per diem employees of defendant, working as bridge painters, and they sue to recover back moneys deducted from their pay cheeks in 1934 on account of furloughs imposed by defendant under a statute authorizing such action as to each employee of defendant within the range of annual compensation received by plaintiffs. Each plaintiff alleged as a first cause of action that the statute did not apply to per diem employees, and alleged as a second cause of action that if the deductions were lawfully made, the financial position attained by the city in 1934 made the return of the deductions mandatory. At the trial the complaint was dismissed on the merits as to both causes of action. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiffs were clearly within the terms of the statute authorizing furloughs. In view of the pledging by the city of tax arrears for 1933 and earlier years against revenue bills, such arrears collected in 1934 could not be applied by the city, either legally or morally, to the financing of the budget for 1934. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 897, 297 N.Y.S. 252, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stillwaggon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1937.