Hyperlawhypertext legal database Reitzfeld v. Sobel 114 N.Y.S. 27

← Cases

Reitzfeld v. Sobel

114 N.Y.S. 27 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1909-01-08 English

Contents

Majority

p. 27
REITZFELD v. SOBEL et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 8, 1909.)

Headnote

Master and Servant (§ 8[1] )—Discharge—Indefinite Term—Damages.
• If an employé was not hired for any definite period, she could not recover a full month’s wages upon being discharged, but only for the time she worked.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 8-10; Dec. Dig. § 8.[1] ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Action by Tillie Reitzfeld against Mary Sobel and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and BISCHOFF and GUY, JJ.
Otto F. Seggel, for appellants.
Samuel Manheimer, for respondent.

The testimony given on the part of the plaintiff failed to show that she was hired for any definite period, and, as her right to recover for one month’s wages depended upon such proof, the judgment must be reversed. Frank v. Man. Mat. & Dis. (Sup.) 107 N. Y. Supp. 404 .

Judgment reversed and new trial.ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.