From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rushford v. LaGuardia

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1939
21 N.E.2d 889 (N.Y. 1939)

Opinion

Reargued May 23, 1939

Decided June 2, 1939

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

William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel ( Paxton Blair and William S. Gaud, Jr., of counsel), for defendants, respondents and appellants.

Harold Riegelman, H.H. Nordlinger and Jacob M. Dinnes for Citizens Budget Commission, Inc., amicus curiae. Irving H. Saypol, Laurence Arnold Tanzer and Leo Kotler for petitioners, appellants and respondents.


Upon reargument, order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: LEHMAN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN and RIPPEY, JJ. Dissenting: CRANE, Ch. J., O'BRIEN and FINCH, JJ. Upon the reargument CRANE, Ch. J., is convinced that the meaning of section 68 of the charter is correctly stated in the dissenting opinion of FINCH, J. (See 280 N.Y. 223.)


Summaries of

Matter of Rushford v. LaGuardia

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 2, 1939
21 N.E.2d 889 (N.Y. 1939)
Case details for

Matter of Rushford v. LaGuardia

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILLIAM T. RUSHFORD et al., Appellants and Respondents…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 2, 1939

Citations

21 N.E.2d 889 (N.Y. 1939)
21 N.E.2d 889

Citing Cases

Matter of Broderick v. City of New York

Petitioners contend that the Board of Estimate had no power to create ten new positions of Deputy Chief…