From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maas v. Dermody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 25, 1939
257 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Opinion

May 25, 1939.


Such rights as plaintiffs have to the moneys for which this judgment has been obtained against defendant as supervisor of the town of Cochecton arise under section 185 Town of the Town Law. The proper remedy was not a common-law action but a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, which possibly should have been preceded by audit of the claim by the town board. ( Matter of DeAngelis v. Laino, 260 N.Y. 661; Matter of Hart v. Perkins, 258 id. 61; People ex rel. McCabe v. Matthies, 179 id. 242; Matter of Hiscox v. Holmes, 237 App. Div. 240; Fabric Fire Hose Co. v. Town of Whitestown, 187 id. 118; Matter of Attorney-General v. Taubenheimer, 178 id. 321.) Judgment reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur, except Bliss, J., who dissents.


Summaries of

Maas v. Dermody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 25, 1939
257 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
Case details for

Maas v. Dermody

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD MAAS and Others, as Trustees for the LAKE HUNTINGTON VOLUNTEER FIRE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 25, 1939

Citations

257 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Citing Cases

Maglio v. City of New York

In the case at bar, the Comptroller disallowed the claim and the Board of Estimate never considered or acted…