Bogert v. Board of Education

New York Supreme Court

Bogert v. Board of Education

44 Misc. 10, 89 N.Y.S. 737

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 15, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 Misc. 10 (Bogert v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bogert v. Board of Education, 44 Misc. 10, 89 N.Y.S. 737 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff being employed as a teacher in the city of Brooklyn at the time it became part of the new city of New York, he,was continued in' the same position [12]*12or grade by the charter of the new city, not merely for the remainder of the term for which he was then employed, viz., until July 1, 1898, hut like all other teachers in the new city, ipr an indefinite term of employment, i. e., until removed for cause after a trial by his school board (§§ 1117, 1114; People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 N. Y. 169). The city superintendent of schools had no power to remove him or prevent him from teaching in his grade, and he is entitled to recover for the breach of his contract of employment, (Steinson v. Board of Education, 165 N. Y. 431). The measure of damages is his salary less anything he has earned meanwhile as a substitute.

I direct a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,270.83, with interest.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff being employed as a teacher in the city of Brooklyn at the time it became part of the new city of New York, he,was continued in' the same position [12]*12or grade by the charter of the new city, not merely for the remainder of the term for which he was then employed, viz., until July 1, 1898, hut like all other teachers in the new city, ipr an indefinite term of employment, i. e., until removed for cause after a trial by his school board (§§ 1117, 1114; People ex rel. Callahan v. Board of Education, 174 N. Y. 169). The city superintendent of schools had no power to remove him or prevent him from teaching in his grade, and he is entitled to recover for the breach of his contract of employment, (Steinson v. Board of Education, 165 N. Y. 431). The measure of damages is his salary less anything he has earned meanwhile as a substitute.

I direct a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,270.83, with interest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Misc. 10, 89 N.Y.S. 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bogert-v-board-of-education-nysupct-1904.

Opinion

I direct a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,270.83, with interest.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack