From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1939
256 App. Div. 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Opinion

April 10, 1939.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ.


Judgments of conviction of violation of sections 195 Lab. and 196 Lab. of the Labor Law unanimously affirmed. Intent is not an element to be considered in determining whether or not the statutes have been violated. ( N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co. v. Williams, 64 Misc. 15; affd., without opinion, 136 App. Div. 904; affd., 199 N.Y. 108; affd., 233 U.S. 685; People v. Werner, 174 N.Y. 132; People v. Kibler, 106 id. 321; People v. Taylor, 192 id. 398; People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms-S.-D. Co., 180 App. Div. 615.) There is no basis for a holding that the Legislature intended to make any exceptions by virtue of equitable circumstances in providing for the payment of wages in cash and within the stipulated period. If inability to pay were to be considered as a defense, the statutes would be rendered nugatory.


Summaries of

People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1939
256 App. Div. 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
Case details for

People v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PRIMROSE WET WASH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 10, 1939

Citations

256 App. Div. 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Citing Cases

State v. Carpenter

For these reasons, our analysis of this problem is not far advanced by the reasoning of State v. Feist,…

People v. Ahrend Co.

The conviction of appellant can only stand if subdivision 2 of section 196 of the Labor Law and section 1272…