In re Wittekind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wittekind

256 A.D. 918, 10 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5443

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 918 (In re Wittekind) 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 Wittekind, 256 A.D. 918, 10 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on or about December 31, 1938, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — O’Malley, Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse and deny the motion for an order directing the muniei[919]*919pal civil service commission for the city of New York to revoke the resolution adopted by it at its meeting on September 8, 1938, on the ground that the action taken was within the power and discretion of the defendants-appellants.— Order entered February 9, 1939, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the petitioners-respondents against the intervenors-appellants. No opinion. Present — O’Malley, Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the motion of the intervenors-defendants to amend their answers. [See 170 Mise. 939.]

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

Order entered on or about December 31, 1938, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — O’Malley, Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse and deny the motion for an order directing the muniei[919]*919pal civil service commission for the city of New York to revoke the resolution adopted by it at its meeting on September 8, 1938, on the ground that the action taken was within the power and discretion of the defendants-appellants.— Order entered February 9, 1939, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the petitioners-respondents against the intervenors-appellants. No opinion. Present — O’Malley, Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the motion of the intervenors-defendants to amend their answers. [See 170 Mise. 939.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 918, 10 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wittekind-nyappdiv-1939.