Dunning v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunning v. Patterson

19 A.D.2d 539, 240 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3781

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

DecidedMay 13, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 539 (Dunning v. Patterson) 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

Dunning v. Patterson, 19 A.D.2d 539, 240 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, brought by petitioner, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, who had been dismissed by the Authority after a hearing upon charges and whose punishment had been reduced by this court of February 26, 1962 to six months’ suspension {Matter of Running v. Patterson, 15 A D 2d 818), to compel the Authority to pay him back salary from January 6, 1960 (the date of his dismissal) until March 22, 1962 (the date of his reinstatement pursuant to our order), less the salary for the six months’ suspension ordered by this court, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 20, 1962, which denied his petition. Order affirmed, without costs {Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 13 A D 2d 696). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, brought by petitioner, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, who had been dismissed by the Authority after a hearing upon charges and whose punishment had been reduced by this court of February 26, 1962 to six months’ suspension {Matter of Running v. Patterson, 15 A D 2d 818), to compel the Authority to pay him back salary from January 6, 1960 (the date of his dismissal) until March 22, 1962 (the date of his reinstatement pursuant to our order), less the salary for the six months’ suspension ordered by this court, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 20, 1962, which denied his petition. Order affirmed, without costs {Matter of Mitthauer v. Patterson, 13 A D 2d 696). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 539, 240 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunning-v-patterson-nyappdiv-1963.