Legal Opinion

Ulrich v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1900PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Action to recover salary as court attendant of the Municipal Court for the tenth district. Defense, that the municipal civil service commission refused to certify to plaintiff’s appointment.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.

Prior to January 1, 1899, the plaintiff was temporarily appointed an attendant in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, for the tenth judicial district, and on the date named entered upon the performance of his duties. His salary was paid to August 10, 1899, and thereafter the defendant refused to pay him for subsequent services on the ground that the period of his appointment had terminated. The plaintiff continued to perform services as attendant to April 9, 1900, and the action is to recover salary between August 10, 1899, and April 9 following.

The defense is that subsequent to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Graham v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1900
  2. O'Sullivan v. KnoxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  3. O'Sullivan v. KnoxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Deering v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API