Dendrinos v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 27 June 1949 |
| Citation | 86 F. Supp. 688 |
| Parties | DENDRINOS et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
William L. Standard, New York City, proctor for libelants.
John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel, New York City, proctor for respondent. Joseph T. Caponigri, William E. Walsh and Helen R. Cassidy, New York City, of counsel.
Libelants sue pursuant to Sections 596, 597, 46 U.S.C.A., to recover wages for extra work performed aboard respondent's vessel in excess of their regular working hours.
For the purposes of this pre-trial hearing wherein we are asked to determine certain preliminary questions of law the following facts have been stipulated:
Libelants were employed as oilers by the City of New York, Department of Public Works, aboard the sludge vessel M. V. Coney Island. The work of the vessel consisted of carrying sludge and waste from the sewage disposal plants of the City, out of New York Harbor to a dumping ground about 10 miles out to sea — half of the work being carried on within the waters of the harbor and the other half in the open waters outside. Libelants were certificated seamen; they aided in the operation and navigation of the vessel and were employees of the City, being paid at an annual rate, bi-monthly. During the period 1944-45 they performed extra work aboard the vessel, and during this time they accepted their regular fixed wages and signed the bi-monthly payrolls without protest although they were not receiving payment for the extra hours of work. Libelants contend that in response to their request for overtime they received promises of additional compensation or "time-off" (although it does not appear by whom such promises were in fact made). It is not disputed that during these years they received neither additional compensation nor time off for the extra work. Both prior to 1944 and subsequent to 1945, libelants were compensated for extra work performed at these times by receiving time off with pay. The extra work here involved consisted of the performance of routine duties aboard the vessel; it was not of an extraordinary nature or incidental to an emergency.
Libelants rely on Sections 596, 597, which provide for the payment of wages to a seaman and contain the further provision that if such wages are wrongfully and without sufficient cause withheld from him he shall be entitled to recover a sum equal to two days' pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed. To come within these provisions libelants must establish that they are seamen, that they are entitled to payment for extra work and that respondent, The City of New York, has wrongfully and without sufficient cause withheld such payment.
Libelants' labor contributed to the accomplishment of the activity in which the vessel was engaged — the business of the municipality. The vessel was a necessary implement in carrying out a municipal function vital to the well-being, health and safety of the inhabitants of the City. It matters not that it was not engaged in carrying on the business of a private enterprise; or that libelants did not sign shipping articles and that they were Civil Service employees boarding and living at home, being paid a regular annual salary and receiving vacation and pension benefits as any other city employee. Libelants were seamen and come within the present liberal definition of seamen. Saylor v. Taylor, 4 Cir., 77 F. 476. Their rights as such are therefore to be governed by federal statute and not by local law. Pariser v City of New York, 2 Cir., 1945, 146 F.2d 431. This apparently is specifically recognized in Special Order No. 234 of the Department of Public Works of the City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorensen v. City of New York
...applicable to all libellants, both in his suit and in the four companion cases with which it was consolidated. 2 See Dendrinos v. City of New York, D. C., 86 F.Supp. 688. 3 As to the second ground cf. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 246, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 4 Crane v. City ......
-
Vinieris v. Byzantine Maritime Corp.
...v. Universal Line, S.A., 322 F.Supp. 449, 459 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 436 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.1970), and "punitive", Dendrinos v. City of New York, 86 F.Supp. 688, 690 (S.D.N.Y.1949), and which may produce results that are "both absurd and palpably unjust", Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 ......
-
Sorensen v. City of New York
...on a pretrial hearing of one of the companion cases, which by agreement of the parties is binding in all 43 cases. Dendrinos v. City of New York, D.C., 86 F. Supp. 688. Judge Ryan held that libellant is a seaman and therefore his rights are governed by federal statute rather than by local s......
-
Chung, Yong Il v. Overseas Nav. Co. Ltd.
...statute as "harsh," Mavromatis v. United Greek Shipowners Corp., 179 F.2d 310, 318 (1st Cir.1949), "punitive," Dendrinos v. City of New York, 86 F.Supp. 688, 690 (S.D.N.Y.1949), and capable of producing results that are "both absurd and palpably unjust." Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors Inc.,......