MATTER OF LOPINTO v. TEAD


279 A.D. 138 (1951)

In the Matter of Frank Lopinto, Respondent, v. Ordway Tead et al., Constituting The Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, et al., Appellants

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

November 27, 1951.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Helen R. Cassidy of counsel (Seymour B. Quel and Daniel T. Scannell with her on the brief; Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel, attorney), for appellants.

Morris Weissberg, attorney (Sidney A. Fine with him on the brief), for respondent.

PECK, P. J., GLENNON, DORE, CALLAHAN and VAN VOORHIS, JJ., concur.


Per Curiam.

While appointment must be made during the life of a certification, there is no requirement that an oath be taken and filed before the certification expires. The oath requirement is a condition subsequent to appointment and must be complied with before the employee enters upon the discharge of his duties. No time limitation for compliance is prescribed by the statute. Section 30 of the Civil Service Law merely...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases