Legal Opinion

Conway v. Carey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 18, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

It is the duty of a department head to eliminate unnecessary positions. (People ex rel. Vineing v. Hayes, 135 App. Div. 19; People ex rel. Kaufman v. Board of Education, *375166 id. 58; People ex rel. Chappel v. Lindenthal, 173 N. Y. 524.) However, upon the evidence adduced at the trial there was some proof that petitioner’s civil service position, with compensation at the rate of $4,500 per annum, was abolished, not for reasons of economy, but to make way for the appointment of another to the newly created exempt position of engineering assistant to the commissioner, paying a salary of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Davison v. . WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
  2. People Ex Rel. Chappel v. . LindenthalNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  3. People ex rel. Vineing v. HayesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  4. Schmidt v. Board of SupervisorsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Penale v. County of NiagaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  2. Lewin v. LaGuardiaNew York Supreme Court · 1940
  3. McCanless v. BrieantNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Seidel v. GaynorNew York Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API