Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg

31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4742
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg. Read the opinion of the Court — 35 A.D.2d 988

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

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).

31 A.D.2d 757 (Caruso v. Incorporated Village of Sloatsburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.