Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. City of New York

Decision Date11 December 1962
Citation234 N.Y.S.2d 862,17 A.D.2d 327
Parties, 46 Lab.Cas. P 50,684 WHOLESALE LAUNDRY BOARD OF TRADE, INC., Prudential Laundry Corp., Quick Service Laundry, Inc., Starlight Laundry Service, Inc., Sunshine-Quaker Laundry Service, Inc., Washington Heights Laundry Corp., Central Laundry Service, Inc., Clason Laundry Co., Inc., and Ideal Cash & Carry Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent. NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, INC., 21 Club, Inc., Sardi's Restaurant, Inc., Joseph Archdeacon, d/b/a Harmony Gourmet House, Miller's Postkeller, Inc., and Stark's Madison Ave., Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Robert F. Wagner, as Mayor of the City of New York, and James J. McFadden, as Acting Commissioner of Labor of the City of New York, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Myron P. Gordon, New York City, of counsel (David M. Bluestone, Jacob N. Kliegman and Stanley Israel, New York City, with him on the brief) Bluestone & Kliegman, New York City, for appellants.

Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Seymour B. Quel, New York City, of counsel (John F. Kelly, Pauline K. Berger, George H. P. Dwight and Bernard Friedlander, New York City, with him on the brief) Leo A. Larkin, New York City, for respondent The City of New York.

Kenneth W. Greenawalt, New York City, of counsel (Raymond T. Munsell, New York City, with him on the brief) Davies, Hardy & Schenck, New York City, for Commerce and Industry Association of New York, Inc., as amicus curiae.

Charles W. Merritt, New York City, of counsel (Gerard A. Navagh, New York City, with him on the brief) Lord, Day & Lord, New York City, for New York Chamber of Commerce, as amicus curiae.

Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, RABIN, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.

STEUER, Justice.

The two appeals herein considered are from orders of Special Term denying plaintiffs' applications for injunctions pendente lite. The actions seek declaratory judgments to the effect that the New York City Minimum Wage Law (Local Law No. 59, 1962) is invalid. It is contended by both appellants and respondent that the only question presented is the validity of the local law and that no other or subsidiary question peculiar to the injunctive process is presented.

The local law in question provides that after its effective date every employer in the City of New York shall pay to his employees a wage of not less than $1.25 an hour and that on and after one year subsequent to the effective date the minimum wage shall be not less than $1.50 an hour.

Plaintiffs challenge this enactment on two grounds: first, that the city is not authorized by virtue of Article 9, Section 12, of the State Constitution (the Home Rule section) or any other section to enact a statute of this character; second, that the local law is invalid because it is inconsistent with statewide legislation on the same subject.

The first contention involves the question of whether or not permission to legislate in this field is granted by virtue of the constitutional grant in regard to police powers. In the view we take, we do not reach this question. The constitutional grant is limited to legislation not inconsistent with the laws of the state. It is implemented by the City Home Rule Law (L.1939, ch. 867, amending L.1924, ch. 363). This statute contains the following provision:

'Sec. 11. (4). Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed by implication or otherwise to authorize an amendment or repeal of any provision of the labor law * * *.'

The restriction is also treated in the section on Restrictions (§ 21) which denies authority to local legislative bodies to enact a statute which 'supersedes a state statute' in that it '[a]pplies to or affects any provision of the labor law' (subsection 5).

Consequently, any purported enactment which offends in this connection lacks authorization and is invalid regardless of whether it might be embraced within the general powers granted to the municipalities by the constitution.

We conclude that the proposed legislation is inconsistent with Labor Law, Article 19 (L.1960, ch. 619, §§ 650-665), also called the Minimum Wage Act. This Act (§ 652, as amd. by L.1962, ch. 439) provides a minimum wage of one dollar per hour for the period October 1, 1960, to October 15, 1962; thereafter, and until October 15, 1964, a minimum wage of $1.15 an hour; and thereafter a wage of $1.25 an hour. As to each period, there is a provision that the wage is to prevail unless another wage is established in accord with the provisions of the article. Succeeding sections (653 et seq.) provide for an investigation by the Industrial Commissioner whether the wages paid in any occupation in accordance with the provisions of the law are adequate. If the commissioner has reason to believe that the minimum wage in any occupation is inadequate, he is directed to appoint a wage board to inquire into the question and make recommendations. These recommendations may vary as to locality within the same occupation (§ 656). After receipt of the wage board's findings and after provisions for hearing and review, a new and higher wage in the particular occupation and locality may be fixed by the commissioner.

That is the statewide legislation in the field and the question is whether the local law supersedes the state statute. It is the city's contention that a statute which extends but does not run...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • People v. Doe
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 31, 1981
    ...... of Tempera or the board (see Matter of New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. v. New York State ... acceptable under the State law (e.g., Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, 17 ......
  • Image Carrier Corp. v. Beame, s. 79
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 30, 1977
    ......v. . Abraham D. BEAME, Mayor of New York City, et al., Appellants. . The HOUSE OF PHY, INC., et al., Appellees, . v. . Abraham D. BEAME, ... workmen, laborers or mechanics in the same trade or occupation at the time the work is performed. ... also, Municipal Home Rule Law § 10; Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. City of New York, ......
  • ILC Data Device Corp. v. County of Suffolk
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 14, 1992
    ......Compagnon, New York City (Amy Young on the brief), for Communications ....Y.S.2d 966, 417 N.E.2d 78;] see also, Wholesale Laundry Bd. v City of New York, 12 NY2d 998 [239 ...Inc. Vil. of Hempstead, 30 [182 A.D.2d 305] N.Y.2d ......
  • Chwick v. Mulvey
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 28, 2010
    ...patrons to remain on the premises consuming alcoholic beverages until 4:30 AM]; Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, 17 A.D.2d 327, 234 N.Y.S.2d 862, affd. for reasons stated below, 12 N.Y.2d 998, 239 N.Y.S.2d 128, 189 N.E.2d 623 [local ordinance that provided for a different......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT