People ex rel. Morgan v. Bingham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Morgan v. Bingham

115 A.D. 474, 101 N.Y.S. 410, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D. 474 (People ex rel. Morgan v. Bingham) 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

People ex rel. Morgan v. Bingham, 115 A.D. 474, 101 N.Y.S. 410, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

McLaughlin, J.:

The relator was formerly an active member of the police force of the city of Hew York, and was retired and ,placed upon the retired list.with a pension.. Subsequently he instituted this proceeding by notice of motion to obtain a writ of mandamus requiring the defendant, as police commissioner, to reinstate him in his'former position. After the motion had been argued, but before the same had been determined, he sought to discontinue- the proceeding, but the corpo- ■ ration counsel refusing -to give hi§ consent, a motion was made for that purpose. The motion was granted and there was inserted in ' the order a provision that the proceeding was discontinued “ without prejudice to a new proceeding.” From this order the defendant appeals. .

It. is difficult to see what objection the defendant would have to the discontinuance of.the proceeding.- Certainly the relator had a [475]*475right to discontinue if he saw fit. Defendant was not injured. It was, in effect, a confession on the part of the relator that upon the papers presented he was not entitled to the relief asked. He, however, was not entitled to have inserted in the order the words “ without prejudice to a new proceeding.” Whether in a new proceeding he would be entitled to the writ must be determined from the papers there presented, unaffected'by the order permitting this proceeding to be discontinued. This we, in effect, held in People ex rel. Allen v. York (84 App. Div. 440) and People ex rel. Arfken v. York (106 id. 590). These words were improperly inserted in the order. Therefore, the order should be modified by striking them out, and inasmuch as the defendant has appealed from the whole order, the modification should be without costs to either party.

The order appealed from, therefore, is modified by striking out of "it the words “ without prejudice to a new proceeding,” and as modified the same is affirmed, without costs to either party.

Ingraham, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, .without costs. Order filed.

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

McLaughlin, J.:

The relator was formerly an active member of the police force of the city of Hew York, and was retired and ,placed upon the retired list.with a pension.. Subsequently he instituted this proceeding by notice of motion to obtain a writ of mandamus requiring the defendant, as police commissioner, to reinstate him in his'former position. After the motion had been argued, but before the same had been determined, he sought to discontinue- the proceeding, but the corpo- ■ ration counsel refusing -to give hi§ consent, a motion was made for that purpose. The motion was granted and there was inserted in ' the order a provision that the proceeding was discontinued “ without prejudice to a new proceeding.” From this order the defendant appeals. .

It. is difficult to see what objection the defendant would have to the discontinuance of.the proceeding.- Certainly the relator had a [475]*475right to discontinue if he saw fit. Defendant was not injured. It was, in effect, a confession on the part of the relator that upon the papers presented he was not entitled to the relief asked. He, however, was not entitled to have inserted in the order the words “ without prejudice to a new proceeding.” Whether in a new proceeding he would be entitled to the writ must be determined from the papers there presented, unaffected'by the order permitting this proceeding to be discontinued. This we, in effect, held in People ex rel. Allen v. York (84 App. Div. 440) and People ex rel. Arfken v. York (106 id. 590). These words were improperly inserted in the order. Therefore, the order should be modified by striking them out, and inasmuch as the defendant has appealed from the whole order, the modification should be without costs to either party.

The order appealed from, therefore, is modified by striking out of "it the words “ without prejudice to a new proceeding,” and as modified the same is affirmed, without costs to either party.

Ingraham, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, .without costs. Order filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D. 474, 101 N.Y.S. 410, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-morgan-v-bingham-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack