Broderick v. City of New York

268 A.D. 856, 50 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3846
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 268 A.D. 856 (Broderick v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Broderick v. City of New York, 268 A.D. 856, 50 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and ■ disbursements. We hold that the action of the Budget Director in creating the additional positions involved herein without the specific approval of the Board of Estimate was not sanctioned by law. This renders it unnecessary for us to pass on the other questions at issue. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon. Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [182 Mise. 990.] [See post, p. 894.] In the Matter of Richard Welling, Respondent, against Patrick Walsh, as Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, et al., Appellants; Richard B. Haynes, Intervener, Defendant, and James W. 0. Wood et al, Interveners, Defendants-Appellants.— Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. We hold that the action of the Budget Director in creating the additional positions involved herein without the specific approval of the Board of Estimate was not sanctioned by law. This renders it unnecessary for us to pass on the other questions at issue. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See post, p. 894.] Anita M. Gardner et al., Appellants, v. Frank C. Shattdck Co., Inc., Respondent.— Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

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

Related

Bakerian v. Greenberg
39 Misc. 2d 454 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Mt. Everest Strawberry Co. v. Chapron
29 Misc. 2d 390 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Heimowitz v. Steri-Clean Diaper Co.
11 Misc. 2d 919 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Barnes v. Fuchs
7 Misc. 2d 456 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Scher & Feldman, Inc. v. Jubilee Juniors, Inc.
20 Misc. 2d 325 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Precision Apparatus Co. v. Precision Meter Co.
6 Misc. 2d 817 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)
Industrial Plants Corp. v. Industrial Liquidating Co.
286 A.D. 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Bailey v. Miller
208 Misc. 26 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Rayco Manufacturing Co. v. Layco Auto Seat Cover Center, Inc.
205 Misc. 827 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Murray v. Roedel
196 Misc. 233 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D. 856, 50 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1944.