Lanza v. Ryan

• Citation: 171 N.E. 792,253 N.Y. 581
• Parties: In the Matter of Silvio A. LANZA, Appellant, against George J. RYAN et al., as Members of the Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 11 April 1930
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

253 N.Y. 581

171 N.E. 792

In the Matter of Silvio A. LANZA, Appellant, against George J. RYAN et al., as Members of the Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 11, 1930.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (228 App. Div. 632, 237 N. Y. S. 817), entered January 29, 1930, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the defendants to issue to the petitioner a license as a teacher of physics in the high schools in the city of New York and granted an alternative order. The following questions were certified:

‘First. Was the petitioner-appellant eligible under one or all three of the alternatives of eligibility mentioned in the petition, according to official records maintained in connection with petitioner-appellant's case as a matter of law?

‘Second. Was the amendment of August 8, 1928, to the by-laws of the board of education mentioned in paragraph ‘forty-third’ of the petition and admitted in the defendants-respondents' answer and otherwise at Special Term sufficient to make petitioner-appellant eligible as matter of law?

‘Third. Did said by-law or amendment of August 8, 1928, apply to petitioner's case as matter of law?

‘Fourth. Did said by-law or amendment of August 8, 1928, violate any constitutional or other provision of law or was it illegal as a matter of law?

‘Fifth. Under the pleadings and admissions at Special Term, could the alleged inapplicability or alleged illegality of said by-law or amendment of August 8, 1928, be raised in the Appellate Division for the first time as a matter of law?

‘Sixth. Upon the pleadings and admissions in the proceeding and records maintained in connection with petitioner-appellant's case was there a material question of fact raised to be tried under an alternative order as a matter of law?

‘Seventh. Did the board of education have the power to pass the by-law or amendment of August 8, 1928, which was spread upon the minutes of the journal of the board of education at page 1975, and which read as follows:

“Resolved, that the Board of Superintendents recommends of the Board of Education that for eligibility for a high school license, experience as a laboratory assistant in high schools may be credited on the same basis as teaching experience on and after January 1, 1926,' as a matter of law?

‘Eig...