Legal Opinion

Kunz v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1953PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtFrank, J.

This action involves two principal questions: (1) whether these plaintiffs have been illegally deprived of the right of employment for sixty-three days in each of the years involved; (2) whether the plaintiffs, if entitled to recover, have waived that right for a portion of the time involved.

The plaintiffs, regular civil service employees, each with the title of crane engineman, electric, were entitled, pursuant to the Labor Law (§ 220), to be paid the per diem rate of wages prevailing in the same trade in private industry. Although the City of New York employed provisional crane enginemen,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Toscano v. McGoldrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  2. Manning v. JosephNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
  3. Dinan v. PattersonNew York Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Bronx Garment Center, Inc. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  5. Estes v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1946

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Abarno v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API