New York Court of Appeals, 1947

Manko v. City of Buffalo

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 28, 1947 · Conway

72 N.E.2d 623; 296 N.Y. 905; 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 1674 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Sukup v. State of New York (N.Y. 1967)
Golomb v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Sinicropi v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Leo v. Barnett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
Van Buskirk v. Bleiler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1974)
Kaval Construction Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1972)
Artvale, Inc. v. Rugby Fabrics Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1964)
Stout v. City of Syracuse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
McNamara v. Powell (N.Y. 1947)
Dunkel v. McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1947)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, DESMOND, THACHER and DYE, JJ. Taking no part: CONWAY, J. FULD, J., dissents in the following memorandum: Section 21 of the Civil Service Law, implementing the Constitution (N.Y. Const., art. V, § 6), commands preferences to war veterans in appointment and promotion. Under subdivision 7, denial of the required preference gives the veteran a cause of action for "damages".

Words are flexible and take on meaning from the history and purpose of the legislation. (See Towne v. Eisner,245 U.S. 418, 425, per HOLMES, J.) Regardless of its limited denotation in a different context and under different circumstances, here, in the light of constitutional and statutory mandate, it is my view *Page 907 that the term "damages" encompasses counsel fees incurred by a veteran in a proceeding to secure the preference guaranteed him. (See Stiles v. Municipal Council of City of Lowell,233 Mass. 174.) Confirmation for such construction is found in the circumstance that section 23 of the Civil Service Law entitles the nonveteran officer or employee wrongfully removed, not to "damages", as specified in section 21, but to "compensation" lost to him.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond, Thaoher and Dye, JJ.

Dissenting Opinion

Conway, J. Fuld, J.,

Taking no part: dissents in the following memorandum: Section 21 of the Civil Service Law, implementing the Constitution (N. Y. Const., art. V, § 6), commands preferences to war veterans in appointment and promotion. Under subdivision 7, denial of the required preference. gives the veteran a cause of action for “ damages ”.

Words are flexible and take on meaning from the history and purpose of the legislation. (See Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, 425, per Holmes, J.) Regardless of its limited denotation in a different context and under different circumstances, here, in the light of constitutional and statutory mandate, it is my view *907that the term “ damages ” encompasses counsel fees incurred by a veteran in a proceeding to secure the preference guaranteed him. (See Stiles v. Municipal Council of City of Lowell, 233 Mass. 174.) Confirmation for such construction is found in the circumstance that section 23 of the Civil Service Law entitles the nonveteran officer or employee wrongfully removed, not to “ damages ”, as specified in section 21, but to “ compensation ” lost to him.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.