Taylor v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Ryan

253 A.D. 653, 3 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8526

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

DecidedApril 14, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 653 (Taylor v. Ryan) 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

Taylor v. Ryan, 253 A.D. 653, 3 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Assuming, without conceding or deciding, that the record discloses a fixed policy of rejecting bids from individuals or concerns maintaining so-called open shops, and that such a fixed general policy would be illegal, evidence to justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiff is lacking. It is well settled that, in a taxpayer’s action of this nature, proof of mere illegality is insufficient. There must be shown not only illegal action but one “ in some way injurious to municipal and public interests ” which, “ if permitted to continue * * * will in some manner result in increased burdens upon and dangers and disadvantages to the municipality and to the interests represented by it and so to those who are taxpayers.” (Western New York Water Company v. City of Bufalo, 242 N. Y. 202, 207; Campbell v. City of New York, 244 id. 317, 330.) Here, as stated by the trial justice, the rejection of bids was done in good faith by responsible officials vested with and in the exercise of, a proper discretion, and, as it seems to us, to avoid increased burdens and threatened dangers to the municipality.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Martin, P. J., dissents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Assuming, without conceding or deciding, that the record discloses a fixed policy of rejecting bids from individuals or concerns maintaining so-called open shops, and that such a fixed general policy would be illegal, evidence to justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiff is lacking. It is well settled that, in a taxpayer’s action of this nature, proof of mere illegality is insufficient. There must be shown not only illegal action but one “ in some way injurious to municipal and public interests ” which, “ if permitted to continue * * * will in some manner result in increased burdens upon and dangers and disadvantages to the municipality and to the interests represented by it and so to those who are taxpayers.” (Western New York Water Company v. City of Bufalo, 242 N. Y. 202, 207; Campbell v. City of New York, 244 id. 317, 330.) Here, as stated by the trial justice, the rejection of bids was done in good faith by responsible officials vested with and in the exercise of, a proper discretion, and, as it seems to us, to avoid increased burdens and threatened dangers to the municipality.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Martin, P. J., dissents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 653, 3 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-ryan-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack