Maurizio v. Hoberman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maurizio v. Hoberman

39 A.D.2d 524, 330 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4971

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

DecidedApril 11, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 524 (Maurizio v. Hoberman) 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

Maurizio v. Hoberman, 39 A.D.2d 524, 330 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County entered on March 26, 1971, confirming the report of the Special Referee with reference to rating examination papers of certain civil service workers, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The duty of establishing the requirements for the promotional examination is conferred on the respondents alone, and may not be interfered with by the courts if fairly exercised. The omission of the respondents to participate in this appeal might well imply conformance with the views of Special Term. Nevertheless, the courts may not exercise the power or discharge the duty of the respondents. (Matter of Wirzberger v. Watson, 305 N. Y. 507.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Nunez, Murphy, McNally and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County entered on March 26, 1971, confirming the report of the Special Referee with reference to rating examination papers of certain civil service workers, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The duty of establishing the requirements for the promotional examination is conferred on the respondents alone, and may not be interfered with by the courts if fairly exercised. The omission of the respondents to participate in this appeal might well imply conformance with the views of Special Term. Nevertheless, the courts may not exercise the power or discharge the duty of the respondents. (Matter of Wirzberger v. Watson, 305 N. Y. 507.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Nunez, Murphy, McNally and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 524, 330 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurizio-v-hoberman-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack