Sanger v. Greene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanger v. Greene

243 A.D. 835

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 835 (Sanger v. Greene) 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

Sanger v. Greene, 243 A.D. 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting the application of the petitioners for peremptory mandamus directing the reinstatement of petitioners in their respective positions as architectural draftsmen and designers or senior architects, grade 7, in the Division of the Architectural Department of Public Works of the State of New York. The petitioners outranked Dowden, Diffen and Van Auken, who were retained in their positions. The reclassification attempted in 1932 was only effective for the limited purpose of allocating appropriations. The reclassification bill, which twice passed the Legislature, having been vetoed and the requirement of the bill being that where positions are abolished suspension shall be in the inverse order of the original appointment in the service, entitle the petitioners to the relief asked for and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ. [153 Misc. 507.]

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

Appeal from an order granting the application of the petitioners for peremptory mandamus directing the reinstatement of petitioners in their respective positions as architectural draftsmen and designers or senior architects, grade 7, in the Division of the Architectural Department of Public Works of the State of New York. The petitioners outranked Dowden, Diffen and Van Auken, who were retained in their positions. The reclassification attempted in 1932 was only effective for the limited purpose of allocating appropriations. The reclassification bill, which twice passed the Legislature, having been vetoed and the requirement of the bill being that where positions are abolished suspension shall be in the inverse order of the original appointment in the service, entitle the petitioners to the relief asked for and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ. [153 Misc. 507.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanger-v-greene-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack