Otis v. Board of Higher Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Otis v. Board of Higher Education

277 A.D.2d 1035

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1035 (Otis v. Board of Higher 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

Otis v. Board of Higher Education, 277 A.D.2d 1035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Glennon and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: Under the plain language of the statute the petitioners herein would seem to be entitled to six annual increments to be added to the appointive salaries so long as the total of the increments and salary received does not exceed the maximum salary provided by the statute. The language of the statute being clear, no room is left for applying the rule of practical construction. Those petitioners who had received one or more annual increments before the statute was enacted are limited to the remaining annual increments not received before the statute went into effect.

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

Orders affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Glennon and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum: Under the plain language of the statute the petitioners herein would seem to be entitled to six annual increments to be added to the appointive salaries so long as the total of the increments and salary received does not exceed the maximum salary provided by the statute. The language of the statute being clear, no room is left for applying the rule of practical construction. Those petitioners who had received one or more annual increments before the statute was enacted are limited to the remaining annual increments not received before the statute went into effect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otis-v-board-of-higher-education-nyappdiv-1950.