Schwartz v. Board of Estimate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Board of Estimate

282 A.D. 663, 122 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575

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

DecidedJune 9, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 663 (Schwartz v. Board of Estimate) 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

Schwartz v. Board of Estimate, 282 A.D. 663, 122 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Petitioner was bound by the valid resignation which he tendered, and the board of estimate, as a matter of law, had power, and as a matter of policy, a very broad one, to withhold granting permission to withdraw the tendered resignation. Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine the question of the kind of position petitioner held. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, J J.; Cohn, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and remit the matter to Special Term to have determined the issue as to whether petitioner was a private secretary. In the event it is determined that petitioner was not a private secretary, I am of the view that the refusal to grant his request to withdraw the retirement application in the circumstances of this case was capricious and arbitrary. [203 Misc. 701.]

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

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Petitioner was bound by the valid resignation which he tendered, and the board of estimate, as a matter of law, had power, and as a matter of policy, a very broad one, to withhold granting permission to withdraw the tendered resignation. Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine the question of the kind of position petitioner held. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, J J.; Cohn, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and remit the matter to Special Term to have determined the issue as to whether petitioner was a private secretary. In the event it is determined that petitioner was not a private secretary, I am of the view that the refusal to grant his request to withdraw the retirement application in the circumstances of this case was capricious and arbitrary. [203 Misc. 701.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 663, 122 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-board-of-estimate-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack