Leidman v. Bingham — 306 N.Y. 663

Majority

p. 663

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.

Argued October 20, 1953;

decided December 3, 1953.

p. 665

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, Fum and Fboessel, JJ., concur; Van Voobhis, J., taking no part.

Orders reversed, etc,

Cases cited

Pisciotta v. City of New York 300 N. Y. 664 N.Y. 1950-02-23 p. 665
Pisciotta v. City of New York 300 N. Y. 755 N.Y. 1950-04-13 p. 665

Statutes and regulations cited

Military Law p. 665