Opinion

Matter of Ragsdale v. Board of Education

  • 282 N.Y. 323
  • 26 N.E.2d 277
  • 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 1003
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 5, 1940
Status
Published
On the bench
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 56.3%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner is an employee of the Board of Education of the city of New York which fixed his salary under the authority provided in sections 883 and 887 of the Education Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 16). The right of the Board so to do was exclusive. The Board of Education is not a department of the city of New York

(Matter of Divisich

v.

Marshall,

281 N. Y. 170, 173 ). Under those circumstances, petitioner is not a

“

person in the service of the city re-employed or reinstated * * * to the same or similar position he formerly held in the same or any other department of the city ” within the salary protection of the provisions of Local Law No. 26 of the City of New York for the year 1937 (Administrative Code, § B40-6.1, p. 1170; L. 1937, ch. 929).

The orders should be reversed and the petition dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.