Callus v. 10 East Fortieth Street Bldg.
Decision Date | 28 May 1943 |
Citation | 51 F. Supp. 528 |
Parties | CALLUS et al. v. 10 EAST FORTIETH STREET BLDG., Inc. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Victor J. Herwitz, of New York City, (Monroe Goldwater, of New York City, and James Goldwater, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, of New York City (Joseph M. Proskauer and Harold H. Levin, both of New York City, of counsel), for 10 East Fortieth Street Bldg., Inc.
Fifty-one plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and other employees and former employees of the defendant 10 East 40th Street Building, Inc., similarly situated for the recovery authorized by Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.
The statute will hereinafter be referred to as the "Act".
The case was tried by the Court without a jury on March 16, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24.
At the opening of the trial the action was severed as to the defendant Cross & Brown Company and the 10 East 40th Street Building Corporation will hereafter be referred to as the defendant.
There was a partial stipulation as to the facts, including the amount to which the plaintiffs would be entitled if the Court found in their favor.
55 witnesses were called by the plaintiffs for the purpose of showing the area of occupancy and the character of business transacted by each tenant.
There is no substantial dispute of the facts, except as to the inferences to be reasonably drawn therefrom. The issue is whether the plaintiffs, and others, employed by the defendant, as service and maintenance employees, were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Findings of Fact.
(1) The defendant is a New York corporation having its principal place of business at 10 East 40th Street, New York, N. Y.
(2) The defendant is the owner of a 48-story and basement office building located at 10 East 40th Street, New York, N. Y.
(3) Defendant's business has consisted of the management and operation of said building, the leasing of space therein to various tenants, and the rendition of the usual type of service incident to the operation and leasing of space in an office building in New York, N. Y.
(4) During the period covered by the complaint plaintiffs were hired by the defendant as maintenance employees of its said office building.
(5) The gross area of said office building available for rental was 234,245 square feet, of which 11 per cent has been unoccupied.
(6) The rentable area of the building has been leased by defendant to, and occupied by, approximately 111 tenants, viz.:
(7) The services rendered and the work done in the defendant's office building by the officers, agents and/or employees of the tenants encompass the following:
(8) There is no manufacturing of any kind carried on in the office building in question, and the percentage of labor and space actually utilized in the building by employees of any of the tenants in connection with the publicity and advertising prepared in or outside of the building has not been mathematically computed, but in relation to the entire volume of business transacted and carried on by the tenants at and from said premises is not substantial.
(9) An average of 50 to 60 persons, including plaintiffs, engaged as maintenance employees of said office building, have engaged in such capacities as elevator starters, elevator operators, window cleaners, watchmen, mechanics and handymen.
(10) These employees have performed the customary duties incident to the effective maintenance and operation of this office building, such as the furnishing of heat and hot water; keeping the elevators, radiators, water and fire sprinkler systems in repair; the maintenance of electric light power systems and appliances; the operation of elevators carrying tenants and employees, customers and clients of tenants, and other passengers; carrying advertising matter, publicity releases, photographic material, magazine layouts, commercial art drawings, printers' and lithographers' proofs, construction plans and specifications, Diesel engine parts, Ediphone machines and parts, samples of merchandise, office furniture and equipment and supplies to and from tenants' premises; protection of the building in tenants' quarters from theft, fire and other damage; repair of hallways, stairways and other common parts of the building; the keeping of the building in tenant's quarters in a clean and habitable condition; renovation of interior parts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Th Street Bldg v. Callus
...'necessary to the production' of goods for commerce. Obviously they are not 'engaged in commerce.' The District Court dismissed the suit. 51 F.Supp. 528. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 146 F.2d 438. By a meticulous calculation, it found that the executive offices of manufacturing an......
-
McComb v. Turpin
...whose purpose did not comprise the production of `goods' at all." A case even more important factually is Callus v. 10 East 40th Street Building, D. C., S.D.N.Y. 1943, 51 F.Supp. 528, in which the District Court found (51 F.Supp. at pages 529, 530) that employees of engineering firms, tenan......
-
Convey v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 12644.
...Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 935; Hinkler v. Eighty-Three Maiden Lane Corp., D.C.N.Y., 50 F.Supp. 263; Callus v. 10 East 40th Street Bldg., D.C.N.Y., 51 F.Supp. 528; Johnson v. Masonic Bldg. Corp., D.C.Ga., 51 F.Supp. 527; 6 W.H. Rep. 19; Joseph v. Ray, 10 Cir., 139 F.2d 409. Cf.......
-
BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES, ETC. v. Trenton Trust Co.
...Development Co., 5 Cir., 132 F.2d 287; Hinkler v. Eighty Three Maiden Lane Corporation, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 263; Callus v. 10 East Fortieth Street Bldg., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 528; Johnson v. Masonic Bldg. Co., D.C., 51 F.Supp. 527; Lofther v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 692; Cochr......