Case ID: misc_126/html/0326-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peder Petersen, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 15, 1926.
    Municipal corporations — city of New York — claim against city — under Greater New York charter, .§ 149, claimant for additional wages must establish that he accepted lesser sum under protest — plaintiff failed to make notation of protest on payroll — judgment reduced.
    As a prerequisite to the assertion of any claim against the city of New York for wages earned and not compensated, a claimant must establish under section 149 of the Greater New York charter that at the time he signed the payroll covering the period for which the additional wage is sought, he made a notation thereon that he accepted the lesser sum under protest.
    Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against the city of New York for additional wages earned, but for which he has not been compensated, should be reduced by a sum representing a period of fifty-four days, where he failed to show that for such period he had made a notation on the payroll that he accepted the lesser sum under protest.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, for the sum of $522.45.
    
      George P. Nicholson [Willard S. Allen of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Sparks & Fuller [Frederick W. Sparks of counsel], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

As a prerequisite to the assertion of any claim against the city of New York for wages earned and not compensated, the claimant must establish that at the time he signed the payroll covering the period for which the additional wage is sought he accepted the lesser sum under protest. (Greater New York Charter, § 149.) The court below awarded judgment to the plaintiff for the full period he sued for, although for a portion of this period (fifty-four days) no. protest was noted when plaintiff signed the payroll. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reduced to the sum of $399.81, with interest and costs, the reduction representing the fifty-four days allowed by the court below which were not protested, and as modified the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party.

All concur; present, Guy, Wagner and Lydon, JJ.