From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Esterhazy v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1952
281 App. Div. 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Opinion

December 16, 1952.

Present — Dore, J.P., Cohn, Van Voorhis and Breitel, JJ.


Order of the city comptroller unanimously annulled, with costs to the petitioners, and the matter is remitted to the city comptroller for further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of section 220 Lab. of the Labor Law. The comptroller as the fiscal officer specified in the statute is required by subdivision 8 of section 220 to give notice to interested parties. In this instance one such interested party was the American Museum of Natural History. There could be no other. This the comptroller failed to do. Upon a hearing with all interested parties present it may be determined whether petitioners are engaged upon a public work, and whether the statute is applicable to them. In that connection it may or may not be significant that the statute was enacted subsequent to the establishment of contractual relations between the city and the museum. If the foregoing issues are determined favorably to petitioners, then the prevailing rate of wages must be determined. Section 220 Lab. of the Labor Law is not limited to direct employees of the city in the fixation of prevailing rates of wages. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Matter of Esterhazy v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1952
281 App. Div. 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
Case details for

Matter of Esterhazy v. Joseph

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JULIUS ESTERHAZY et al., Petitioners, against LAZARUS…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1952

Citations

281 App. Div. 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)