Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., Inc., Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Mandel, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1939-04-10
Citations: 256 A.D. 1088
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., Inc., Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Mandel, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 1088–1089

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Primrose Wet Wash Laundry Co., Inc., Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Mandel, Appellant.

Opinion:
Judgments of conviction of violation of sections 195 and 196 of the Labor Law unanimously affirmed. Intent is not an element to be considered in determining whether or not the statutes have been violated. (N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 64 Misc. 15; affd., without opinion, 136 App. Div. 904; affd., 199 N. Y. 108; affd., 233 U. S. 685; People v. Werner, 174 N. Y. 132; People v. Kibler, 106 id. 321; People v. Taylor, 192 id. 398; People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms-S.-D. Co., 180 App. Div. 615.) There is no basis for a holding that the Legislature intended to make any exceptions by virtue of equitable circumstances in providing for the payment of wages in cash and within the stipulated period. If inability to pay were to be considered as a defense, the statutes would be rendered nugatory. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ.