From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Leidman v. Bingham

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 3, 1953
116 N.E.2d 496 (N.Y. 1953)

Opinion

Argued October 20, 1953

Decided December 3, 1953

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, BREITEL, J., MILLER, J.

Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel ( Henry J. Shields and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for appellants.

Charles Belous, Norman L. Adolf, Irving Lemov and Stanley E. Springer for respondent.


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.


Summaries of

Matter of Leidman v. Bingham

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 3, 1953
116 N.E.2d 496 (N.Y. 1953)
Case details for

Matter of Leidman v. Bingham

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN LEIDMAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Other…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 3, 1953

Citations

116 N.E.2d 496 (N.Y. 1953)
116 N.E.2d 496

Citing Cases

Parsons v. Dept. of Transportation

In Devens ( supra) the Fourth Department interpreted the four-month limitation relating to mandamus to mean…