Schenck v. Palma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schenck v. Palma

249 A.D. 834, 292 N.Y.S. 544, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9915

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 834 (Schenck v. Palma) 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

Schenck v. Palma, 249 A.D. 834, 292 N.Y.S. 544, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from peremptory order of mandamus reinstating nine petitioners-respondents to their former grades of employment and directing payment of salaries not received during the period of suspension. Order modified by striking out the clauses directing preparation of supplementary payrolls and payment of back salaries at the rates referred to in the order, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to compute the amounts due the respondents as salary from May 6, 1935, to the date of reinstatement, at the rates fixed then and thereafter by the proper authorities in the respective grades to which the respondents have been reinstated by the court, less earnings received by them during said period. As so modified, the order, in so far as an appeal is taken, is unanimously affirmed, with costs in this court to the respondents. Findings of fact and conclusions of law will be modified to conform to this decision. The appeal from the alternative order is dismissed. The record does not contain evidence of (1) the salaries in respondents’ grades after May 6, 1935; (2) the dates on which the various respondents were reinstated to their grades; (3) the sums earned by them at other- employment after May 6, 1935. After proof of these items, computations of the amounts due the respondents may be made and the amounts included in the order. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ. Settle order on notice.

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

Appeal from peremptory order of mandamus reinstating nine petitioners-respondents to their former grades of employment and directing payment of salaries not received during the period of suspension. Order modified by striking out the clauses directing preparation of supplementary payrolls and payment of back salaries at the rates referred to in the order, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to compute the amounts due the respondents as salary from May 6, 1935, to the date of reinstatement, at the rates fixed then and thereafter by the proper authorities in the respective grades to which the respondents have been reinstated by the court, less earnings received by them during said period. As so modified, the order, in so far as an appeal is taken, is unanimously affirmed, with costs in this court to the respondents. Findings of fact and conclusions of law will be modified to conform to this decision. The appeal from the alternative order is dismissed. The record does not contain evidence of (1) the salaries in respondents’ grades after May 6, 1935; (2) the dates on which the various respondents were reinstated to their grades; (3) the sums earned by them at other- employment after May 6, 1935. After proof of these items, computations of the amounts due the respondents may be made and the amounts included in the order. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 834, 292 N.Y.S. 544, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenck-v-palma-nyappdiv-1937.