In re Phillips

240 A.D. 705
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D. 705 (In re Phillips) 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
In re Phillips, 240 A.D. 705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Alternative mandamus order reversed on the law and not [706]*706in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and application denied, without costs, with leave to petitioner, if so advised, to apply to the Special Term for leave to amend his petition, pursuant to section 1329 of the Civil Practice Act. The petition in this case contains no allegation showing a valid appointment of the petitioner under the Civil Servico Law and the Rules of the Municipal Civil Service Commission, and the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled under this petition to either a peremptory or an alternative order. (Matter of Chiaverini v. Murray, 237 App. Div. 856.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Burke v. Hayden
2 Misc. 2d 1040 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D. 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-phillips-nyappdiv-1933.