Tevlin v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tevlin v. McGoldrick

255 A.D. 994, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6200

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 994 (Tevlin v. McGoldrick) 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

Tevlin v. McGoldrick, 255 A.D. 994, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from a final order granting the application of the petitioners for an order under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, directing the defendants to include in the budget of the city of New York for the year 1938 and the first half of 1939, appropriations in various amounts fixed by the judges of the County Court, Bungs county, as the petitioners’ salaries for the said period instead of lesser amounts previously fixed by the city appropriating bodies. Final order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (Matter of Wingate v. Taylor, 166 Misc. 13; affd. sub nom. Matter of People ex rel. Wingate v. Taylor, 254 App. Div. 749; affd. sub nom. Matter of Wingate v. McGoldrick, 279 N. Y. 246; Matter of Hetherington v. Taylor, 254 App. Div. 859; Matter of Rosenthal v. McGoldrick, Id. 859. See Matter of Meehan v. McGoldrick, ante, p. 994, decided herewith.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

Appeal by defendants from a final order granting the application of the petitioners for an order under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, directing the defendants to include in the budget of the city of New York for the year 1938 and the first half of 1939, appropriations in various amounts fixed by the judges of the County Court, Bungs county, as the petitioners’ salaries for the said period instead of lesser amounts previously fixed by the city appropriating bodies. Final order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (Matter of Wingate v. Taylor, 166 Misc. 13; affd. sub nom. Matter of People ex rel. Wingate v. Taylor, 254 App. Div. 749; affd. sub nom. Matter of Wingate v. McGoldrick, 279 N. Y. 246; Matter of Hetherington v. Taylor, 254 App. Div. 859; Matter of Rosenthal v. McGoldrick, Id. 859. See Matter of Meehan v. McGoldrick, ante, p. 994, decided herewith.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 994, 8 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tevlin-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack