Home/New York Court of Appeals/Steinson v. . Bd. of Education of N.Y.

Steinson v. . Bd. of Education of N.Y.

59 N.E. 300, 165 N.Y. 431, 3 Bedell 431, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 1430
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 29, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by55 cases

This text of 59 N.E. 300 (Steinson v. . Bd. of Education of N.Y.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steinson v. . Bd. of Education of N.Y., 59 N.E. 300, 165 N.Y. 431, 3 Bedell 431, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 1430 (N.Y. 1901).

Opinion

Landon, J.

The plaintiff was not an officer, but an employee. His employment was contractual, and his proper remedy is by action. Mandamus would not lie as of strict right, and might be refused in the discretion of the court; hence the former denial of that remedy does not bar the present action.

His state certificate was conclusive evidence of his qualifica *435 tions to teach, and hence his employment, without more, was authorized."

His provisional certificate had expired before he was employed. The Appellate Division, in reversing upon the facts, is presumed to have held upon the conflicting evidence that it was not renewed. ' If it 'had been renewed, the only effect that could be given to it, in view of his having a state certificate, would be to support the inference that he contracted for employment with reference to its limited term. This inference is not here permissible.

The plaintiff’s employment ivas subject to no other limit of time than the power of removal for cause, vested in the defendant and its officers, and the ¡Dower of the state superintendent to revoke his state license. The plaintiff was discharged without right or cause and is entitled to recover.

The appeal might be dismissed, but as we do not think a new trial, pursuant to the order of the Appellate Division, necessary, we conclude to affirm, thus giving effect to the defendant’s stipulation for judgment absolute.

The order should be affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs.

Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann and Cullen, JJ., concur; Parker, Ch. J., not voting.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

Related

Igneri v. Moore
721 F. Supp. 406 (N.D. New York, 1989)
Sinicropi v. Bennett
92 A.D.2d 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
90 A.D.2d 51 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Hansell v. City of Long Beach
61 A.D.2d 84 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Pryles v. State
86 Misc. 205 (New York State Court of Claims, 1975)
Haskins v. State Ex Rel. Harrington
516 P.2d 1171 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1973)
Antonopoulou v. Beame
296 N.E.2d 247 (New York Court of Appeals, 1973)
Friedman v. State
29 A.D.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Friedman v. State
53 Misc. 2d 455 (New York State Court of Claims, 1967)
Smith v. Helbraun
24 A.D.2d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Boyd v. Collins
182 N.E.2d 610 (New York Court of Appeals, 1962)
Warner v. Board of Education
14 A.D.2d 300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Austin v. Board of Higher Education
158 N.E.2d 681 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
Austin v. Board of Higher Education
5 A.D.2d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Austin v. Board of Higher Education
9 Misc. 2d 253 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Shlakman v. Board of Higher Education
282 A.D. 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)
People ex rel. Patterson v. Board of Education
269 A.D. 39 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)
Cooke v. Dodge
164 Misc. 78 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Sappington v. Commissioner
25 B.T.A. 1385 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1932)
Gelson v. Berry
233 A.D. 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 N.E. 300, 165 N.Y. 431, 3 Bedell 431, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 1430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinson-v-bd-of-education-of-ny-ny-1901.