Whaley v. Andrews

252 A.D. 69, 297 N.Y.S. 668, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5585
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1937·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the return filed herein is sufficient on its face and conforms to the requirements of the statute. The return should not have been stricken out nor should the court have granted a peremptory mandamus order. There are issues of fact on the question as to whether petitioner’s removal from his position was in compliance with law.

The order striking out the return of defendant-appellant to an alternative order of mandamus and granting petitioner-respondent a peremptory order of mandamus should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the issues raised by the return to the alternative order should be tried pursuant to law.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the issues raised by the return to the alternative order directed to be tried pursuant tolaw.

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

Whaley v. Andrews, 252 A.D. 69, 297 N.Y.S. 668, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

252 A.D. 69 (Whaley v. Andrews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kropp v. Common CounCil
26 Misc. 2d 127 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)