Matter of Rushford v. Laguardia
New York Court of Appeals
1DissentFinch, J.
It is agreed that there can be no recovery by those of the petitioners who failed to protest. (Quayle v. City of New York, 278 N. Y. 19; Matter of Shevlin v. LaGuardia, 254 App. Div. 922; affd., 279 N. Y. 649.)
It is also agreed that there can be no recovery by those of the petitioners who accepted appointment at a lower salary pursuant to the certificate of the Budget Director. (Matter of Dobrovolny v. Prendergast, 219 N. Y. 280.)
I cannot agree, however, that there can be a recovery by the remaining petitioners in disregard of the resolution by the city of New York reducing the salaries…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Thoma v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Quayle v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Haggerty v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Matter of Shevlin v. LaguardiaNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Matter of Dobrovolny v. . PrendergastNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.