Fuchs v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuchs v. Board of Education

1 A.D.2d 785, 147 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6599

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 785 (Fuchs v. Board of Education) 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

Fuchs v. Board of Education, 1 A.D.2d 785, 147 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to compel the respondent superintendent of schools to recommend to the respondent board of education the appointment of one of the appellants as its director of science, and for other relief, the appeal is from an order dismissing the petition, on respondents’ motion. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The fact that appellants have been marked qualified for appointment to a position which is eoncededly in the noncompetitive class does not give them a right to appointment. (Hurley v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 270 N. Y. 275; Reiser v. State of New York, 198 Misc. 647; Matter of Turel v. Delaney, 287 N. Y. 15; Matter of Bailey v. Kern, 177 Misc. 904, 905; Matter of Ottinger v. Civil Service Comm., 240 N. Y. 435.) Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ. [See post, p. 892.]

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

In a proceeding to compel the respondent superintendent of schools to recommend to the respondent board of education the appointment of one of the appellants as its director of science, and for other relief, the appeal is from an order dismissing the petition, on respondents’ motion. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The fact that appellants have been marked qualified for appointment to a position which is eoncededly in the noncompetitive class does not give them a right to appointment. (Hurley v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 270 N. Y. 275; Reiser v. State of New York, 198 Misc. 647; Matter of Turel v. Delaney, 287 N. Y. 15; Matter of Bailey v. Kern, 177 Misc. 904, 905; Matter of Ottinger v. Civil Service Comm., 240 N. Y. 435.) Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ. [See post, p. 892.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 785, 147 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuchs-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack