Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of JOHN LEIDMAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Employees Similarly Situated, Respondent, against SIDNEY H. BINGHAM et al., Constituting the Board of Transportation of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Per Curiam.

It is undisputed that petitioner failed to sign "under protest" the payrolls as well as the checks issued thereon for the period in question. Accordingly, section 93c-2.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York prevents his recovery on any further claim for wages and salary during the period of his active military duty. Neither the State Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act (Military Law, § 305) nor its Federal counterpart (U.S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 522) relieved petitioner of the necessity of signing under protest as prescribed by section 93c-2.0 of the Administrative Code. ( Pisciotta v. City of New York, 275 App. Div. 966, affd. 300 N.Y. 664, reargument denied and remittitur amended 300 N.Y. 755, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 825.)

The orders appealed from should be reversed and the petition dismissed, without costs.

LEWIS, Ch. J., CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ., concur; VAN VOORHIS, J., taking no part.

Orders reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF LEIDMAN v. BINGHAM
(Dec 3, 1953)