O'Neil v. Brooklyn Savings Bank
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Estro Chemical Co. v. Falk (N.Y. 1951)
- Phelan v. Carstens, Linnekin & Wilson (City of New York Municipal Court 1946)
- Asselta v. 149 Madison Avenue Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1945)
- Fleming v. Post (2d Cir. 1944)
- PAK Realty Associates v. RE/MAX Universal, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1993)
- Snowpine Village Condominium Board of Managers v. Town of Great Valley (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- People v. Isaacs (New York County Courts 1988)
- 950 Third Ave Co. v. Eastland Industries, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 1983)
- Norms Realty Corp. v. Rodriguez (Civil Court of the City of New York 1981)
- Bess v. Toia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc. (N.Y. 1976)
- Menasche v. Interoceanic Commodities Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
- Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil (Supreme Court of the United States 1945)
- Cangemi v. Cuttner Fur Blending Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1945)
- Easley v. Edgord Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1945)
- Anderson v. New York Savings Bank (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1944)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Judgment affirmed, with costs, without prejudice to an application in the trial court for reasonable attorney’s fee for services rendered upon an appeal.
We do not pass on the question whether the counsel fee heretofore granted is subject to increase for services rendered upon an appeal.
Two questions involving the construction of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and a question under the Federal Constitution were duly presented and necessarily passed upon by this court. The defendant contended:
1. That an action may not be maintained under section (b) of the Act by an employee solely for the recovery of liquidated damages when it is admitted that all overtime compensation was voluntarily paid in full by the employer prior to the institution of suit.
*668 2. That the release of all further claims and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act executed by the employee and delivered to his employer at the time he received payment of all overtime compensation due him under the Act is a good defense to an action subsequently brought by such employee solely to recover liquidated damages.
3. That the imposition of liquidated damages deprives an employer of property without due process of law in violation of' the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
This court held against the defendant on each of these three contentions and unanimously affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ. Rippey, J., taking no part.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.