TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Wittekind

In the Matter of the Application of Henry A. Wittekind, Battalion Chief, James M. McMahon, Captain, Edward C. Belsky, Lieutenant, and Francis B. Martin, Fireman, of the Fire Department of the City of New York, Individually, etc., Petitioners-Respondents, for an Order under Article 78, Civil Practice Act, against Paul J. Kern, President, and Ferdinand Q. Morton and Wallace S. Sayre, Commissioners, Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission for the City of New York, John J. McElligott, Fire Chief and Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, and City of New York, William F. McDonald and Frank Rubino, Intervenors, In the Matter of the Application of Henry A. Wittekind, Battalion Chief, and Others, etc., for an Order under Article 78, Civil Practice Act, against Paul J. Kern, President, and Others, etc., William F. McDonald and Frank Rubino, Intervenors

In re Wittekind, 256 A.D. 918 (1939)
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
February 24, 1939
Citations
256 A.D. 91810 N.Y.S.2d 8621939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5443

Opinion of the Court

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

Order entered on or about December 31, 1938, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — O’Malley, Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse and deny the motion for an order directing the muniei *919 pal civil service commission for the city of New York to revoke the resolution adopted by it at its meeting on September 8, 1938, on the ground that the action taken was within the power and discretion of the defendants-appellants.— Order entered February 9, 1939, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the petitioners-respondents against the intervenors-appellants. No opinion. Present — O’Malley, Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Callahan, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the motion of the intervenors-defendants to amend their answers. [See 170 Mise. 939.]

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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