Van Fleet v. Auburn Foundry, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Fleet v. Auburn Foundry, Inc.

60 A.D.2d 668, 400 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14681

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 668 (Van Fleet v. Auburn Foundry, Inc.) 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

Van Fleet v. Auburn Foundry, Inc., 60 A.D.2d 668, 400 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendant, entered January 21, 1977 in Tompkins County, upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term at the close of all of the evidence. We cannot agree with the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove a prima facie case. The standard to be applied allows dismissal only if the jury by no rational process could have returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff based on the evidence presented (Blum v Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 NY 241). While the evidence supports the defendants’ position that it paid its employees from the hour or the half hour, the evidence also supports plaintiffs contention that pay was wrongfully withheld for certain half-hour blocks. Relevant here is plaintiffs testimony that in response to plaintiffs claim that he was being shortchanged, defendant Spagnola told him the underpayment would be made up to him in his next pay check. Plaintiff also testified that he would ask at the end of the work day (in accordance with company rules) what time he [669]*669should start work in the morning when he worked overtime. This could support an inference that plaintiff was authorized to punch in when he did so. Further, defendant Spagnola admitted paying plaintiff for 15 minutes work when the records show 20, 25 or 30 minutes in excess of defendants’ claimed starting time. Defendant Spagnola testified that payment of the additional amount was made "out of the goodness of our hearts”. Since this practice contravened company policy as enunciated by defendants’ witness, the evidence raised an issue of fact concerning the exact amount plaintiff should have received. This was for the jury to decide. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and a new trial ordered. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of defendant, entered January 21, 1977 in Tompkins County, upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term at the close of all of the evidence. We cannot agree with the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove a prima facie case. The standard to be applied allows dismissal only if the jury by no rational process could have returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff based on the evidence presented (Blum v Fresh Grown Preserve Corp., 292 NY 241). While the evidence supports the defendants’ position that it paid its employees from the hour or the half hour, the evidence also supports plaintiffs contention that pay was wrongfully withheld for certain half-hour blocks. Relevant here is plaintiffs testimony that in response to plaintiffs claim that he was being shortchanged, defendant Spagnola told him the underpayment would be made up to him in his next pay check. Plaintiff also testified that he would ask at the end of the work day (in accordance with company rules) what time he [669]*669should start work in the morning when he worked overtime. This could support an inference that plaintiff was authorized to punch in when he did so. Further, defendant Spagnola admitted paying plaintiff for 15 minutes work when the records show 20, 25 or 30 minutes in excess of defendants’ claimed starting time. Defendant Spagnola testified that payment of the additional amount was made "out of the goodness of our hearts”. Since this practice contravened company policy as enunciated by defendants’ witness, the evidence raised an issue of fact concerning the exact amount plaintiff should have received. This was for the jury to decide. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and a new trial ordered. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 668, 400 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-fleet-v-auburn-foundry-inc-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack