McGovern v. Toplitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGovern v. Toplitz

241 A.D. 693

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 693 (McGovern v. Toplitz) 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

McGovern v. Toplitz, 241 A.D. 693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Peremptory mandamus order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted, without costs, to the extent of directing that an alternative mandamus order issue, to determine the foUowing questions of fact: 1. Was the transfer of the petitioner made -with the consent of the heads of departments as provided by rule 27 of the civil service regulations of the city of Long Beach? 2. Was the transfer made in good faith? 3. If said transfer was not made with such consent, or if not made in good faith, was the quaUty and nature of the work required of the petitioner in the water department substantiaUy the same as the quaUty and nature of the work required of Thompson, who was appointed to the water department after the petitioner was appointed? No opinion. Present—Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, CarsweE, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ.

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

Peremptory mandamus order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted, without costs, to the extent of directing that an alternative mandamus order issue, to determine the foUowing questions of fact: 1. Was the transfer of the petitioner made -with the consent of the heads of departments as provided by rule 27 of the civil service regulations of the city of Long Beach? 2. Was the transfer made in good faith? 3. If said transfer was not made with such consent, or if not made in good faith, was the quaUty and nature of the work required of the petitioner in the water department substantiaUy the same as the quaUty and nature of the work required of Thompson, who was appointed to the water department after the petitioner was appointed? No opinion. Present—Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, CarsweE, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgovern-v-toplitz-nyappdiv-1934.