TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Blodgett v. Board of Supervisors

In the Matter of the Application of Henry R. Blodgett, for a Peremptory Order of Mandamus against The Board of Supervisors of the County of Monroe, and Others

Blodgett v. Bd. of Supervisors, 246 A.D. 188 (1935)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 25, 1935
Citations
246 A.D. 188285 N.Y.S. 3701935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8689

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The position held by the petitioner (a disabled veteran) has been abolished by action of the board of supervisors and consequently no appropriation for salary has been made. No new employees have been taken on to perform the work formerly done by the petitioner. The duties formerly performed by petitioner have been absorbed by another employee holding the position of secretary. Work of the same type, caliber and kind as that previously done by petitioner has been performed by employees of the Civil Works Administration and Temporary Emergency Relief *189 Adnámstration. There is no proof that the secretary is not legally competent to perform the work which he has absorbed and the mere performance of similar work by the emergency agencies gives petitioner no right to reinstatement. No claim is made that the board of supervisors acted in bad faith in abolishing the office. The petitioner to succeed in his effort to be reinstated would have to show that his position still existed and that an appropriation to cover the salary had been made. (Matter of Danker v. Dept. of Health, 266 N. Y. 365 .) In both respects he has failed. The Special Term did not give consideration to the petitioner’s claim to a right to a transfer to the Department of Highways under the provisions of section 22 of the Civil Service Law. This was not necessary in the view the Special Term took as to reinstatement. Now we think it is necessary and we are, therefore, remitting the matter for a consideration of that phase only.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Order reversed on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Special Term for further consideration, without costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1937: 21950: 119372026peak 1937 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stryker v. Board of Education250 A.D. 319 (1937)
  2. Wipfler v. Klebes164 Misc. 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
  3. Loefler v. Power198 Misc. 585 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950)

Most recent

  1. Loefler v. Power198 Misc. 585 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950)
  2. Wipfler v. Klebes164 Misc. 220 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
  3. Stryker v. Board of Education250 A.D. 319 (1937)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Danker v. Dept. of Health, 194 N.E. 857 (N.Y. 1935) 14

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