People Ex Rel. Hurlbut v. . Bingham

78 N.E. 1098, 186 N.Y. 538, 24 Bedell 538, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1189
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 16, 1906·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the limitation on the time to commence a proceeding, contained in section 302 of the New York city charter, does not apply to a proceeding to restore to active duty a member of the police force who has been retired on account of alleged physical incapacity. The claim that the relator was guilty of laches in commencing this proceeding, and that he has waived any right to relief herein present questions of fact which, although they might have been determined otherwise, have been determined in the relator’s favor by the court at Special Term, and such determination has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. We cannot review such questions of fact.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

People Ex Rel. Hurlbut v. . Bingham, 78 N.E. 1098, 186 N.Y. 538, 24 Bedell 538, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1189 (N.Y. 1906).

78 N.E. 1098 (People Ex Rel. Hurlbut v. . Bingham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

O'Connor v. City of New York
178 A.D. 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)