O'Brien v. City of Rome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. City of Rome

262 A.D. 940, 29 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6535

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 940 (O'Brien v. City of Rome) 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

O'Brien v. City of Rome, 262 A.D. 940, 29 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: A person who accepts an appointment to a civil service position in a municipality has no vested right which entitles him to maintain an action for breach of contract against the city upon a reduction being properly made in his salary. Upon a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action bare allegations of wrongdoing based upon undisclosed facts will not support a cause, of action. (Knowles v. City of New York, 176 N. Y. 430; Leonard v. Cammann, 257 App. Div. 387, 390; Matter of Colligan v. Williams, 91 Misc. 128, 130; Gerdes v. Reynolds, 281 N. Y. 180.) The order appealed from should be affirmed. All concur. (The order grants defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in an action to recover salary alleged to be due plaintiff under a civil service appointment as plumbing and sanitary inspector in defendant city.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: A person who accepts an appointment to a civil service position in a municipality has no vested right which entitles him to maintain an action for breach of contract against the city upon a reduction being properly made in his salary. Upon a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action bare allegations of wrongdoing based upon undisclosed facts will not support a cause, of action. (Knowles v. City of New York, 176 N. Y. 430; Leonard v. Cammann, 257 App. Div. 387, 390; Matter of Colligan v. Williams, 91 Misc. 128, 130; Gerdes v. Reynolds, 281 N. Y. 180.) The order appealed from should be affirmed. All concur. (The order grants defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in an action to recover salary alleged to be due plaintiff under a civil service appointment as plumbing and sanitary inspector in defendant city.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 940, 29 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-city-of-rome-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack