U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1958

Rodriguez v. Gerontas Compania De Navegacion

Rodriguez v. Gerontas Compania De Navegacion
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided June 25, 1958
256 F.2d 582 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Herbert Lebovici, Lebovici & Safir, New York City, for libelant-appellee-ap-pellant., Victor S. Cichanowicz, New York City, (Frederick H. Cunningham, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellant-appellee.

Rodriguez v. Gerontas Compania De Navegacion

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

On both the appeal and the cross-appeal we affirm on Judge Dawson’s opinion below, reported at 150 F.Supp. 715, with the following correction as to one minor point raised by the respondent’s appeal.

On the subject of vacation pay, counsel stipulated that if any vacation pay was recoverable under the applicable law the proper measure was one day of pay for every thirty days worked. On this basis libelant computed that $153.53 was due. Judge Dawson found that there was money due for vacation pay and accepted libelant’s figure as the proper amount. However, in discussing the subject of vacation pay, Judge Dawson inadvertently cited as authority an obsolete section of the Panamanian Labor Code, Article 170, which provided for vacation pay at the rate of one day’s pay for each eleven days worked. It is quite clear that the figure awarded is correct: only the citation of Article 170 was incorrect.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.