Weinstock v. Hammond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstock v. Hammond

245 A.D. 614, 283 N.Y.S. 776, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10373

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 614 (Weinstock v. Hammond) 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

Weinstock v. Hammond, 245 A.D. 614, 283 N.Y.S. 776, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner’s application for a rehearing of the charges against him was not made in accordance with- section 1543-b of the Greater New York Charter. Consequently, the certiorari order was properly vacated upon the ground that “ the time within which the petitioner can procure a rehearing ” had not elapsed (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286, subd. 3) and will not elapse until the expiration of two years from the date of his removal, or until four months after proper application for a rehearing of the charges shall have been made and denied.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be modified by providing that it is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to a new order of certiorari, if application in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act be made, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

Order modified by. providing that it is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to a new order of certiorari, if application in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act be made, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The petitioner’s application for a rehearing of the charges against him was not made in accordance with- section 1543-b of the Greater New York Charter. Consequently, the certiorari order was properly vacated upon the ground that “ the time within which the petitioner can procure a rehearing ” had not elapsed (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286, subd. 3) and will not elapse until the expiration of two years from the date of his removal, or until four months after proper application for a rehearing of the charges shall have been made and denied.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be modified by providing that it is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to a new order of certiorari, if application in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act be made, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, O’Malley and Untermyer, JJ.

Order modified by. providing that it is without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to a new order of certiorari, if application in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act be made, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 614, 283 N.Y.S. 776, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstock-v-hammond-nyappdiv-1935.