Conroy v. LaGuardia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conroy v. LaGuardia

258 A.D. 222, 15 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6400

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 1939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whatever the status of petitioner (a clerk in the office of the clerk of the county of the Bronx) may be generally or under other specific statutes, rules and regulations, it seems clear that he is not, under Local Law 26 of 1937 (Administrative Code of the City of New York, § B40-6.1) a person “ in the service of the city * * * ” in a “ department of the city.” He, accordingly, is not entitled to the benefits of said law.

[223]*223The order, therefore, should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam.

Whatever the status of petitioner (a clerk in the office of the clerk of the county of the Bronx) may be generally or under other specific statutes, rules and regulations, it seems clear that he is not, under Local Law 26 of 1937 (Administrative Code of the City of New York, § B40-6.1) a person “ in the service of the city * * * ” in a “ department of the city.” He, accordingly, is not entitled to the benefits of said law.

[223]*223The order, therefore, should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Conroy v. LaGuardia, 258 A.D. 222, 15 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

258 A.D. 222 (Conroy v. LaGuardia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related