Buckley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buckley v. City of New York

264 A.D. 116, 34 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 116 (Buckley 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

Buckley v. City of New York, 264 A.D. 116, 34 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In four of the seven actions for which plaintiffs seek to recover from the city of New York the value of the legal services rendered in behalf of Buckley, he was not a party; in the fifth action, though not a party to the suit originally brought, he was impleaded by the city, which filed a cross-claim against him for the purpose of holding him personally liable for alleged neglect. There can be no recovery against the city for the necessary costs of litigation in any of these cases. In the two remaining actions, where Buckley was made an original defendant, he was compelled to engage counsel to avoid personal liability. As a former public official he did not, in these law suits, represent the public interest, but his defense was solely for his own benefit in his individual capacity and not for a city purpose. In such circumstances there can be no reimbursement from the municipality for expenditures thus incurred. (Matter of Chapman v. City of New York, 168 N. Y. 80; Matter of Kilroe v. Craig, 208 App. Div. 93; affd., 238 N. Y. 628; Matter of Pollock v. Board of Supervisors of Erie County, N. Y., 241 App. Div. 651; People ex rel. Underhill v. Skinner, 74 id. 58; State Const, art. 8, § 1.)

Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

In four of the seven actions for which plaintiffs seek to recover from the city of New York the value of the legal services rendered in behalf of Buckley, he was not a party; in the fifth action, though not a party to the suit originally brought, he was impleaded by the city, which filed a cross-claim against him for the purpose of holding him personally liable for alleged neglect. There can be no recovery against the city for the necessary costs of litigation in any of these cases. In the two remaining actions, where Buckley was made an original defendant, he was compelled to engage counsel to avoid personal liability. As a former public official he did not, in these law suits, represent the public interest, but his defense was solely for his own benefit in his individual capacity and not for a city purpose. In such circumstances there can be no reimbursement from the municipality for expenditures thus incurred. (Matter of Chapman v. City of New York, 168 N. Y. 80; Matter of Kilroe v. Craig, 208 App. Div. 93; affd., 238 N. Y. 628; Matter of Pollock v. Board of Supervisors of Erie County, N. Y., 241 App. Div. 651; People ex rel. Underhill v. Skinner, 74 id. 58; State Const, art. 8, § 1.)

Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 116, 34 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack