From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petersen v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 15, 1926
126 Misc. 326 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

January 15, 1926.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

George P. Nicholson [ Willard S. Allen of counsel], for the appellant.

Sparks Fuller [ Frederick W. Sparks of counsel], for the respondent.


As a prerequisite to the assertion of any claim against the city of New York for wages earned and not compensated, the claimant must establish that at the time he signed the payroll covering the period for which the additional wage is sought he accepted the lesser sum under protest. (Greater New York Charter, § 149.) The court below awarded judgment to the plaintiff for the full period he sued for, although for a portion of this period (fifty-four days) no protest was noted when plaintiff signed the payroll. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reduced to the sum of $399.81, with interest and costs, the reduction representing the fifty-four days allowed by the court below which were not protested, and as modified the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party.

All concur; present, GUY, WAGNER and LYDON, JJ.


Summaries of

Petersen v. City of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 15, 1926
126 Misc. 326 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Petersen v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PEDER PETERSEN, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1926

Citations

126 Misc. 326 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
213 N.Y.S. 322

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Rothrum v. Darby

ex rel. Pike v. Bellingham, 183 Wn. 439, 48 P.2d 602; Kenz v. Seattle, 28 P.2d 1020; State ex rel. Osborn v.…

Galvin v. Kansas City, Missouri

; Nelson v. City of Eveleth, 267 N.W. 261 (Minn.); Bell v. Town of Sullivan, 63 N.E. 209 (Ind.); Downs v.…