From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re B. of Tr. v. Com. of Educ

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 3, 1973
33 N.Y.2d 601 (N.Y. 1973)

Opinion

Argued June 8, 1973

Decided July 3, 1973

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, GEORGE L. COBB, J.

John P. Jehu and Robert D. Stone for the Commissioner of Education and the Committee of the Board of Regents, appellants. James M. Hayes and Clayton M. Axtell, Jr. for Central School District No. 1, appellant.

Edward S. Dermody for the City School District of the City of Binghamton, appellant.

Dwight R. Ball for respondent.


MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The State Education Department, its governing body, the Board of Regents, the Committee of Regents, designated ad hoc as provided by law, and the Commissioner of Education are integrally related (Education Law, § 101). Indeed, it is doubtful but not necessary to decide whether the Committee of Regents was a continuing or suable entity separate from the larger Board of Regents. Under these circumstances, and because the notice and petition served on the Commissioner of Education as the chief administrative officer of the department were completely informative of the party or parties involved as respondents and the issues at stake, the Appellate Division was eminently correct in ignoring technical deficiencies, none of which were serious or prejudicial, in concluding that there had been adequate service, notice, and presence of necessary parties. Modern jurisprudence generally and CPLR 2001 specifically direct a recognition of realities and the needs of justice and the ignoring of technical deficiencies.

Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, BREITEL, JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES and WACHTLER concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

In re B. of Tr. v. Com. of Educ

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 3, 1973
33 N.Y.2d 601 (N.Y. 1973)
Case details for

In re B. of Tr. v. Com. of Educ

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 2 OF THE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 3, 1973

Citations

33 N.Y.2d 601 (N.Y. 1973)
347 N.Y.S.2d 569
301 N.E.2d 541

Citing Cases

Long Island Teen Challenge, Inc. v. Town of Coeymans

Furthermore, we note that "[c]ourts are reluctant to construe delivery of process on persons other than those…

STOCKWICZ v. COMMUNITY COLL

Therefore, service must be made as provided in CPLR 312 which specifies that a board is served by delivering…