Mitchell v. Board of Education

252 A.D. 873, 300 N.Y.S. 285, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6635
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 252 A.D. 873 (Mitchell v. Board of Education) 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
Mitchell v. Board of Education, 252 A.D. 873, 300 N.Y.S. 285, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

Appeal by petitioner from an order denying his motion for a peremptory mandamus order directing defendant board of education to reinstate him as a teacher as of April 1, 1936, and to pay him a balance of salary alleged to be due him for June, 1936, and salary for the remainder of the period of suspension. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion. Subdivision 3-e of section 872 of the Education Law, so far as it is procedural, is retroactive. (Kugel v. Telsey, 250 App. Div. 638, and cases there cited.) Any amendments of the Education Law relate to, and are to be given effect from, the time of the original enactment (American Bank v. Goss, 236 N. Y. 488, 493; Goldman v. Kennedy, 49 Hun, 157, 160; Lyon v. M. R. Co., 142 N. Y. 298, 303-304; Matter of Locust Avenue, 185 id. 115, 120; Morgan v. Hedstrom, 164 id. 224, 230), so that the Education Law is to be read now as if subdivision 3-e of section 872 was originally enacted as a part of it. Furthermore, that subdivision created no new offenses and did not increase existing penalties. It was, therefore, not ex post facto as it related to any offenses committed before its passage. (People ex rel. Pincus v. Adams, 274 N. Y. 447, 454; People v. Hayes, 140 id. 484, 491.) Subdivision 4 of section 870 and subdivision 3-e of section 872 of the Education Law, read together, authorize suspension without pay from the time charges are preferred. The cases cited by petitioner on this head, which are controlled by statutes or rules that withheld the right to suspend without pay pending a hearing, have no application here. Present — Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Related

Jerry v. Board of Education
324 N.E.2d 106 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Goldin v. Board of Education of Central School District No. 1
45 A.D.2d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Jerry v. Board of Education
75 Misc. 2d 461 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Sife v. Board of Education
65 Misc. 2d 383 (New York Supreme Court, 1970)
Nash v. Board of Education
26 Misc. 2d 46 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Cugell v. Monaghan
201 Misc. 607 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
Wolf v. Board of Education
184 Misc. 890 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D. 873, 300 N.Y.S. 285, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1937.