Konnoson v. City of New York

254 A.D. 378, 5 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6425
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 17, 1938·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

No competent evidence of a hiring of the plaintiff by any duly authorized person in the office of the corporation counsel was presented. Furthermore, there Was shown no compliance with section 419 of the Greater New York Charter.

Under such circumstances plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any alleged services rendered. (Keane v. City of New York, 88 App. Div. 542; Fifth Avenue Bank of New York v. City of New York, 250 id. 844; Lyddy v. Long Island City, 104 N. Y. 218.)

It follows, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion for summary judgment granted.

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

Konnoson v. City of New York, 254 A.D. 378, 5 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

254 A.D. 378 (Konnoson v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caruso v. New York City Police Department Pension Funds
136 A.D.2d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Cahn v. Town of Huntington
278 N.E.2d 908 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Cahn v. Town of Huntington
36 A.D.2d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)