Trainor v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trainor v. City of New York

1 A.D.2d 876, 149 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6018

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 876 (Trainor 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

Trainor v. City of New York, 1 A.D.2d 876, 149 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

The agreement between petitioners and City of New York did not provide the petitioners were to receive any fixed number of days of vacation time. Nor did it provide that they would have the same number of vacation days that they had been allowed prior to the agreement. The agreement called merely for " vacation with pay benefits in the same manner and on the same basis heretofore in use in the Department ”. The testimony was clear as to what that basis was. It was four weeks and one day in every instance. The twenty-five days’ vacation received by the petitioners was arrived at on that same basis — having worked six days a week they received twenty-four days for four weeks plus the one day. Applying the same basis of computation to petitioners in their present employment the allowance would be twenty days for four weeks (consisting of five work days each), plus one day. In the circumstances the judgment is unanimously reversed and a declaratory judgment is directed to be entered declaring that petitioners are entitled to an annual vacation allowance of four weeks, plus one day, i.e., twenty-one work days. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Cox and Bergan, JJ.

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

The agreement between petitioners and City of New York did not provide the petitioners were to receive any fixed number of days of vacation time. Nor did it provide that they would have the same number of vacation days that they had been allowed prior to the agreement. The agreement called merely for " vacation with pay benefits in the same manner and on the same basis heretofore in use in the Department ”. The testimony was clear as to what that basis was. It was four weeks and one day in every instance. The twenty-five days’ vacation received by the petitioners was arrived at on that same basis — having worked six days a week they received twenty-four days for four weeks plus the one day. Applying the same basis of computation to petitioners in their present employment the allowance would be twenty days for four weeks (consisting of five work days each), plus one day. In the circumstances the judgment is unanimously reversed and a declaratory judgment is directed to be entered declaring that petitioners are entitled to an annual vacation allowance of four weeks, plus one day, i.e., twenty-one work days. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Cox and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 876, 149 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trainor-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1956.