Ball v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Concurrence
Herlihy, J. (concurring).
I agree with the conclusion of the majority that the direct legislative action necessary to abolish the claimant’s position is not established by the facts and circumstances of this case. I do not agree, however, with the assertion that a repeal by implication of article 19-B of the Executive Law would not also abolish the claimant’s position and preclude his right to recover unpaid salary. The sole right of claimant to his salary would be his appointment for a five-*51year term and the repeal of article 19-B would necessarily shorten his term to the time already served…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cimo v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- People v. MannNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Corning v. DonohueNew York Court of Appeals · 1971