Ragsdale v. Board of Education
In the Matter of Randolph D. Ragsdale, Respondent, Against Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
Petitioner is an employee of the Board of Education of the city of New York which fixed his salary under the authority provided in sections 883 and 887 of the Education Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 16). The right of the Board so to do was exclusive. The Board of Education is not a department of the city of New York (Matter of Divisich v. Marshall, 281 N. Y. 170, 173 ). Under those circumstances, petitioner is not a “ person in the service of the city re-employed or reinstated * * * to the same or similar position he formerly held in the same or any other department of the city ” within the salary protection of the provisions of Local Law No. 26 of the City of New York for the year 1937 (Administrative Code, § B40-6.1, p. 1170; L. 1937, ch. 929).
The orders should be reversed and the petition dismissed, with costs in all courts.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur.
Orders reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.