Legal Opinion
Barmonde v. Kaplan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 21, 1934Published
1Per curiam
On this appeal the appellants do not question the right of the petitioner to a peremptory mandamus order in so far as the same directs his reinstatement. They do, however, question his right to payment of back salary. Mandamus was a proper remedy in the first instance for the recovery of such salary. (Thoma v. City of New York, 263 N. Y. 402, 407; Matter of Arnow v. Delaney, 241 App. Div. 861.) Petitioner being entitled to reinstatement as of the date of his illegal suspension it was proper to award him back salary. (Matter of Kelly v. Board of Education, 234 App. Div. 239; affd., 259 N. Y.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Thoma v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Kelly v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
- Matter of Kelly v. Board of Education of City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Matter of Spivak v. DelaneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Arnow v. DelaneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.