
    WALSH v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 13, 1913.)
    Municipal Corporations (§ 220)—Salary of Employe—Increase—Waiver.
    Where the employs of a city accepted his wages for a period of three years, such acceptance was a waiver'of any right he had under the statute to recover the per diem increase for that period.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 599-608; Dec. Dig. § 220.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough v of Manhattan, Fifth District.
    
      Action by Christopher Walsh against the City of New York. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued October term, 1913, before SEABURY, GUY, and BI-JUR, JJ.
    ICilroe & Swarts, of New York City, for appellant.
    Archibald R. Watson, of New York, City (Terence Farley and Clarence L. Barber, both of New York City,' of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic & § dumber in Dec. & Am. Digs. 19(57 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We think that the case of Ryan v. City of New York, 177 N. Y. 271, 69 N. E. 599, which is binding upon us, precludes the possibility of a recovery in this case. Under the rule laid down in that case, it is clear that the court below was correct in deciding that the acceptance by the plaintiff of his wages for a period of three years was a waiver of any claim he may have had under the statute to recover the per diem increase for that period.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  