Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg

31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4742

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 757 (Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg) 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

Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg, 31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated December 14, 1967, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While we agree with the determination at Special Term insofar as it struck petitioner’s “ claim for reinstatement ”, changed the proceeding to an action at law for salary lost and held that the petition states a cause of action for that relief, we deem it necessary to point out once again, as we did on the prior appeal (see Matter of Caruso v. Incorporated Vil. of Sloatsburg, 28 A D 2d 679), that the record as presented is insufficient to determine petitioner’s civil service status or whether he was legally appointed to the office from which he was removed; and we have not reached or determined those questions on this appeal. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated December 14, 1967, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While we agree with the determination at Special Term insofar as it struck petitioner’s “ claim for reinstatement ”, changed the proceeding to an action at law for salary lost and held that the petition states a cause of action for that relief, we deem it necessary to point out once again, as we did on the prior appeal (see Matter of Caruso v. Incorporated Vil. of Sloatsburg, 28 A D 2d 679), that the record as presented is insufficient to determine petitioner’s civil service status or whether he was legally appointed to the office from which he was removed; and we have not reached or determined those questions on this appeal. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-incorporated-village-of-sloatsburg-nyappdiv-1969.