Kay v. Board of Higher Education
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
The present status of the corporation counsel with respect to his duties and powers has remained substantially unchanged since the office was first established by statute. Subdivision a of section 394 of the New York City Charter provides that “ * * * the corporation counsel shall be attorney and counsel for the city and every agency thereof and shall have charge and conduct of all the law business of the city and its agencies and in which the city is interested.” (Italics ours.)
His authority to conduct all law business of the city and its agencies is exclusive. While exceptions are found,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Judson v. City of Niagara FallsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Sharp v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Judson v. . City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- People ex rel. Sherrill v. GuggenheimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Rawson v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1857
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Cahn v. Town of HuntingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Daniman v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Barry v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1941
- People v. GrosunorCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1981
- Lamberti v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.