TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Prendergast v. Cohalan

In the Matter of the Application of William A. Prendergast, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Appellant, for a Writ of Mandamus Against John P. Cohalan Et Al., as Surrogates of the County of New York, Respondents

Prendergast v. Cohalan, 123 N.E. 885 (N.Y. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 29, 1919
Citations
123 N.E. 885226 N.Y. 6361919 N.Y. LEXIS 1000
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 29, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to cause to be maintained in the office of said surrogates daily time reports of each employee in said office, except such heads of divisions or bureaus therein as may be excused by said surrogates from the duty of making such reports; monthly service records of each of said employees required to make daily time reports; and cause to be compiled in said office and furnished once a month to the comptroller of the city of New York monthly statements and reports showing functional and unit costs of the work of the office of the surrogates of New York county, said reports, records and statements to be compiled, maintained and furnished in accord with the forms therefor heretofore submitted to the surrogates of New York county on or about March 27, 1916, by said comptroller, but subject to any modification of said forms as may be mutually agreed upon by said surrogates on the one hand and by the said comptroller on the other. The Special Term held that section 149-a of the charter of New York city, which provides for the furnishing of detailed reports as required by the comptroller, was not applicable to the surrogates of New York county, inasmuch as the surrogates were not county but judicial officers of the state and, therefore, both the surrogates and their employees are state officers and employees.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11931: 11939: 21965: 119272026peak 1939 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Daly v. McGoldrick20 N.E.2d 545 (N.Y. 1939) · Dissent
  2. Ledwith v. Rosalsky155 N.E. 688 (N.Y. 1927)
  3. Larocca v. Flynn177 N.E. 290 (N.Y. 1931) · Dissent
  4. Claim of Kelly v. Commissioner of Records256 A.D. 761 (1939)
  5. Rein v. Wagner45 Misc. 2d 733 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Rein v. Wagner45 Misc. 2d 733 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)
  2. Claim of Kelly v. Commissioner of Records256 A.D. 761 (1939)
  3. Daly v. McGoldrick20 N.E.2d 545 (N.Y. 1939) · Dissent
  4. Larocca v. Flynn177 N.E. 290 (N.Y. 1931) · Dissent
  5. Ledwith v. Rosalsky155 N.E. 688 (N.Y. 1927)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list