Zeller v. Greenebaum

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeller v. Greenebaum

116 N.Y.S. 556

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 116 N.Y.S. 556 (Zeller v. Greenebaum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zeller v. Greenebaum, 116 N.Y.S. 556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, employed as a butcher, sued to recover $13 for one week’s wages. The services were not denied. Defendant claimed that he had discharged plaintiff because he had been told by his cashier that plaintiff had been taking tips from customers and giving away his employer’s goods and that plaintiff had admitted these things. This the plaintiff denied. The trial judge found for defendant.

If the defendant had proved that plaintiff had disposed of goods’ ■equal in amount to the latter’s salary, defendant might have been allowed to offset the value of those goods. This, however, the defendant did not do; the only evidence offered on this head being in regard to one small purchase, amounting to 33 cents, which plaintiff swears was paid for.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, employed as a butcher, sued to recover $13 for one week’s wages. The services were not denied. Defendant claimed that he had discharged plaintiff because he had been told by his cashier that plaintiff had been taking tips from customers and giving away his employer’s goods and that plaintiff had admitted these things. This the plaintiff denied. The trial judge found for defendant.

If the defendant had proved that plaintiff had disposed of goods’ ■equal in amount to the latter’s salary, defendant might have been allowed to offset the value of those goods. This, however, the defendant did not do; the only evidence offered on this head being in regard to one small purchase, amounting to 33 cents, which plaintiff swears was paid for.

The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.Y.S. 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeller-v-greenebaum-nyappterm-1909.