Young v. Trussel
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSaul S. Streit, J.
This is an article 78 proceeding in the nature of a mandamus and prohibition to require the respondents to perform duties specifically enjoined upon them by law, and restraining the respondents from appointing persons to the position of £ 1 psychologists ’’ without competitive examination, and to prohibit and enjoin the respondent, Civil Service Commission from certifying the payrolls of such employees when they are illegally employed, and for an order terminating the employment of said persons.
The argument in respondents’ answering affidavit that the petitioners have no standing as not being…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matter of Fink v. FineganNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Sloat v. Board of Examiners of the Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Cash v. BatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Chironna v. WatsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Pearl v. New York State Department of Civil ServiceNew York Supreme Court · 1957
3Cited by1 opinion
- Young v. TrusselNew York Supreme Court · 1964