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