From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miranda v. Tead

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 23, 1946
68 N.E.2d 682 (N.Y. 1946)

Opinion

Argued May 23, 1946

Decided July 23, 1946

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, HOFSTADTER, J.

J. George Levy and Irving S. Ottenberg for appellant.

Benjamin M. Zelman for Teachers' Union, amicus curiae, in support of appellant's position.

A. Mark Levien for New York Teachers' Guild, amicus curiae, in support of appellant's position.

John J. Bennett, Corporation Counsel ( Arthur H. Kahn, Seymour B. Quel and Michael A. Castaldi of counsel), for respondents.



Petitioner's position as a teacher in The College of the City of New York was declared in excess by a resolution adopted by respondents on October 18, 1943, which also purported to abolish the position retroactively as of September 1, 1943. Petitioner's services, however, were available to respondents from September 1, 1943, to the day her position was abolished and she is entitled to receive her salary for that period. Insofar as the resolution attempts to deprive petitioner of her salary by abolishing her position retroactively, it is invalid. The orders should be modified to the extent of directing respondents to pay petitioner her salary for the period from September 1, 1943, to October 18, 1943, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The orders should be modified, without costs, in accordance with this opinion, and, as so modified, affirmed.

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, THACHER and FULD, JJ., concur; DYE, J., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

Miranda v. Tead

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 23, 1946
68 N.E.2d 682 (N.Y. 1946)
Case details for

Miranda v. Tead

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROSE L. MIRANDA, Appellant, against ORDWAY TEAD et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 23, 1946

Citations

68 N.E.2d 682 (N.Y. 1946)
68 N.E.2d 682

Citing Cases

Matter of Siniapkin v. Nyquist

( Matter of Baron v. Mackreth, supra.) If not, the Commissioner must determine what damages, if any, in the…