Natilson v. Hodson
| Decision Date | 21 January 1943 |
| Citation | 47 N.E.2d 442,289 N.Y. 842 |
| Parties | Mortimer M. NATILSON v. William HODSON et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 264 App.Div. 384, 35 N.Y.S.2d 537.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of Mortimer M. Natilson against William Hodson as commissioner of the Department of Welfare of the City of New York and others under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, s 1283 et seq., for reinstatement of the petitioner to his position of social investigator in the Department of Welfare. Petitioner was appointed to the position of Social Investigator after a competitive examination. He was accused of violating the rules of the Department which prohibited engagement in any other occupation, profession or business of employment, in that while employed in the Department of Welfare he worked in a department store.
It was disclosed that after petitioner's appointment he did accounting work after office hours for the department store. He received substantial compensation for such extra work. No claim was made that the outside work which was done evenings and on Saturday afternoons interfered with the performance of his civil service duties.
The defendants relied for justification of the action of the Board of Estimate on s 123 of the New York City Charter of 1936 which refers to the adoption of the budget and the powers of the Board of Estimate to increase, decrease or omit any item or to add items thereto.
From an order of the Appellate Division, 264 App.Div. 384, 35 N.Y.S.2d 537 which reversed an order denying the motion, and which granted the petition, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
William C. Chanler, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Paxton Blair and John D. J. Moore, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Leider, Witt & Cammer, of New York City (D. William Leider and Nathan Witt, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Order affirmed with costs on the ground the regulation purported to be adopted by the department exceeds the powers conferred by s 885, subd. a, of the New York City Charter upon heads of the departments.
All concur except FINCH and LEWIS, JJ., who dissent on the ground that the rule promulgated by the Commissioner of Welfare forbidding those employed on full time in the Department of Welfare to engage in outside employment was a reasonable regulation relating to the internal administration of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boreali v. Axelrod
...44 N.Y.2d 593, 602, 407 N.Y.S.2d 452, 378 N.E.2d 1022; Matter of Natilson v. Hodson, 264 App.Div. 384, 35 N.Y.S.2d 537, affd. 289 N.Y. 842, 47 N.E.2d 442; cf., Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204; see also, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Commn., 47......
-
Under 21, Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children v. City of New York
...does not suffer from these infirmities. In Natilson v. Hodson, 264 App.Div. 384, 35 N.Y.S.2d 537 (1st Dept.1942), aff'd 289 N.Y. 842, 47 N.E.2d 442 (1943), the Board of Estimate resolved that no city funds appropriated by the Board "shall be used for the payment of wages or salary of any em......
-
Broidrick v. Lindsay
...ch. 2, § 21; see Matter of Natilson v. Hodson, 264 App.Div. 384, 386--387, 35 N.Y.S.2d 537, 539--540, affd. on other grounds 289 N.Y. 842, 47 N.E.2d 442). In this instance, the Administrative Code makes it unlawful for those contracting with the city to refuse employment because of race (§ ......
-
Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc. v. City of New York
...cases in similar actions, unquestionably establishes that such agency heads have exceeded their powers. In the case of Natilson v. Hodson, 289 N.Y. 842, 47 N.E.2d 442, the commissioner of the Department of Welfare promulgated rules which prohibited any employee from engaging in any other oc......
-
Card check labor certification: lessons from New York.
...the outside employment of Welfare Department employees. See, e.g., Natilson v. Hodson, 35 N.Y.S.2d 537 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1942), aff'd, 47 N.E.2d 442 (N.Y. 1943). By 1946, SCMWA had negotiated eighteen written collective bargaining agreements, and forty-six other less formal agreements, w......