Weinstock v. Hammond

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtLOUGHRAN
Citation270 N.Y. 64,200 N.E. 581
Decision Date03 March 1936
PartiesWEINSTOCK v. HAMMOND.

270 N.Y. 64
200 N.E. 581

WEINSTOCK
v.
HAMMOND.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 3, 1936.


Proceeding in the Matter of the Application of Isidore Weinstock for a certiorari order against Thomas W. Hammond, as sanitation commissioner of the sanitation department of the city of New York. From an order of the Appellate Division in the First Judicial Department, entered December 13, 1935 (245 App.Div. 614, 283 N.Y.S. 776), which modified an order of Special Term granting a motion to vacate an order of certiorari to review a determination of the defendant which removed the petitioner from the position of driver in the department of sanitation of the city of New York, defendant appeals.

Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term affirmed.

The modification by the Appellate Division consisted of a provision that the vacation of the order of certiorari be without prejudice to the petitioner's right to a new order of certiorari, if application be made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision 3 of section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act.


[270 N.Y. 64]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

[270 N.Y. 65]Paul Windels, Corp.
Counsel, of New York City (Paxton Blair, Seymour B. Quel, and Charles E. Ramsgate, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Arthur A. Fink, of New York City, for respondent.


LOUGHRAN, Judge.

The only question presented relates to limitations upon the granting of orders of certiorari.

On July 31, 1934, the relator, after a trial on charges, was dismissed from his service in the department of sanitation of the city of New York. As head of that department, the defendant has power to rehear the charges and to reinstate the relator in accordance with section 1543b of the charter of the city (Laws 1901, c. 466, as amended). It is thereby provided: ‘The head of a city department [270 N.Y. 66]or any other officer, board or body of the city, or of a borough, or of a county, vested with the power of appointment and employment, except as to members of the uniformed forces under the jurisdiction of the police commissioner and the fire commissioner, upon written application by the person aggrieved, setting forth the reasons for demanding an opportunity for making a further explanation, shall have the power, in his discretion, to rehear the explanation and any new matter offered in further reply to the charges or complaint upon which such person was dismissed from the service, provided that such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Van Der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • March 3, 1936
    ...that if this were the same cause of action as we believe it to be it came within the provisions of this section. We need not discuss it. [270 N.Y. 64]The judgment should be affirmed, with costs to coplaintiffs, respondents-appellants (curators).LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, and LOUGHRAN, ......
  • MATTER OF MALLEN v. Morton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 5, 1950
    ...and did not operate to extend the time of petitioner within which to institute an article 78 proceeding (Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64; Matter of Hall v. Leonard 260 App. Div. 591, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Matter of Harrington v. Coster, 194 Misc. 577; Meyer v. McNamara, N. Y. L. J......
  • Loon Lake Estates, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • September 13, 1975
    ...(3rd Dept., 1967); Matter of McDermott v. Johnson, 2 N.Y.2d 608, 162 N.Y.S.2d 9, 142 N.E.2d 192 (1957); Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64, 200 N.E. 581 (1936); Matter of Markert v. Wilson, 284 App.Div. 1086, 135 N.Y.S.2d 807 (3rd Dept., As of the date of notice of the decisions th......
  • MATTER OF GRIEST v. Hooey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 5, 1954
    ...considered by the board of appeals, and indeed the board took no action upon petitioners' application. (Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591, 595, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Campbell v. Nassau County, 273 App. Div. 785; Matter of Canzano v. Hanl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Van Der Stegen v. Neuss, Hesslein & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • March 3, 1936
    ...that if this were the same cause of action as we believe it to be it came within the provisions of this section. We need not discuss it. [270 N.Y. 64]The judgment should be affirmed, with costs to coplaintiffs, respondents-appellants (curators).LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, and LOUGHRAN, ......
  • MATTER OF MALLEN v. Morton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 5, 1950
    ...and did not operate to extend the time of petitioner within which to institute an article 78 proceeding (Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64; Matter of Hall v. Leonard 260 App. Div. 591, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Matter of Harrington v. Coster, 194 Misc. 577; Meyer v. McNamara, N. Y. L. J......
  • Loon Lake Estates, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • September 13, 1975
    ...(3rd Dept., 1967); Matter of McDermott v. Johnson, 2 N.Y.2d 608, 162 N.Y.S.2d 9, 142 N.E.2d 192 (1957); Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64, 200 N.E. 581 (1936); Matter of Markert v. Wilson, 284 App.Div. 1086, 135 N.Y.S.2d 807 (3rd Dept., As of the date of notice of the decisions th......
  • MATTER OF GRIEST v. Hooey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 5, 1954
    ...considered by the board of appeals, and indeed the board took no action upon petitioners' application. (Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591, 595, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Campbell v. Nassau County, 273 App. Div. 785; Matter of Canzano v. Hanl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT