Walsh v. Patterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. Patterson

257 A.D. 917, 12 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391

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

DecidedMay 17, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 917 (Walsh v. Patterson) 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

Walsh v. Patterson, 257 A.D. 917, 12 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

— Orders affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Once before the relator had an order of mandamus herein, which, upon appeal to this court, was reversed, (239 App. Div. 757.) In that proceeding relator did not show whether or not his name appeared upon any labor “ list ” kept by the city of Auburn. (Civil Service Law, §§ 18, 21.) In the present proceeding relator shows, by his petition, that no such list is even kept, and he does not show that he ever asked to have his name placed upon any such list. Relator is in no better position than before. His place upon a list that does not exist cannot be determined. (Matter of Neubeck v. Bard, 275 N. Y. 43.) All concur. (One order denies an application for an alternative writ of mandamus, and the other order denies an application for an order of mandamus, in a proceeding to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as a laborer in the water department in the city of Auburn.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [157 Misc. 713.]

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

— Orders affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Once before the relator had an order of mandamus herein, which, upon appeal to this court, was reversed, (239 App. Div. 757.) In that proceeding relator did not show whether or not his name appeared upon any labor “ list ” kept by the city of Auburn. (Civil Service Law, §§ 18, 21.) In the present proceeding relator shows, by his petition, that no such list is even kept, and he does not show that he ever asked to have his name placed upon any such list. Relator is in no better position than before. His place upon a list that does not exist cannot be determined. (Matter of Neubeck v. Bard, 275 N. Y. 43.) All concur. (One order denies an application for an alternative writ of mandamus, and the other order denies an application for an order of mandamus, in a proceeding to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as a laborer in the water department in the city of Auburn.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [157 Misc. 713.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 917, 12 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-patterson-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack