Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Maurice Simon, Appellant, v. Thomas Darlington et al., as the Board of Health of the City of New York, Respondents, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 572 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Maurice Simon, Appellant, v. Thomas Darlington et al., as the Board of Health of the City of New York, Respondents
192 N.Y. 572·New York Court of Appeals·1908·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Maurice Simon, Appellant, v. Thomas Darlington et al., as the Board of Health of the City of New York, Respondents.
People ex rel. Simon v. Darlington, 123 App. Div. 924, affirmed.
(Argued May 19, 1908;
decided June 2, 1908.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 24, 1908, which dismissed a writ of certiorari and confirmed the proceedings of the defendants in dismissing the relator from employment in the health department of the city of New York.
Andrew H. Scoble and Morris D. Silverstein for appellant.
Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Royal E. T. Riggs of counsel) for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.; Vann and Willard Bartlett, JJ., dissent on the ground that the allegation in the writ that the relator was given no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him was not denied in the return.