Case ID: ny_259/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Martin’s Securities Co., Inc., Appellant, against James J. Walker et al., as Members of the Board of Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
    (Argued March 29, 1932;
    decided April 26, 1932.)
    
      
      Herman Mendes and George Lessall for appellant.
    Mandamus is the proper remedy. (Matter of Oystermen’s 
      
      Dock Co. v. Downing, 258 N. Y. 156; People ex rel. Schanck v. Green, 64 N. Y. 499; People ex rel. Lighton v. McGuire, 31 Misc. Rep. 324; People v. Manning, 37 App. Div. 141; People v. Town Board of Lewis, 27 Misc. Rep. 469.)
    
      Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corporation Counsel (Alfred D. Jahr and Edwin J. Talley of counsel), for James J. Walker et al., respondents.
    Mandamus is not the proper remedy. (Matter of People ex rel. Richards v. Hylan, 200 App. Div. 871; Matter of Ottinger v. Voorhis, 241 N. Y. 49; People ex rel. Clemens v. Williams, 191 App. Div. 279; People ex rel. N. Y. & H. R. R. Co. v. Board of Taxes & Assessments, 166 N. Y. 155.)
    
      Jeremiah T. Mahoney for Charles W. Berry, respondent.
    Mandamus is not the proper remedy. (Matter of Friel, 101 App. Div. 155; 181 N. Y. 558; Matter of Ottinger v. Voorhis, 213 App. Div. 561; 241 N. Y. 49; Matter of Boyle v. Hugo, 101 Misc. Rep. 637; People ex rel. Goldenkoff v. Albany Law School, 198 App. Div. 460; People ex rel. Jones v. New York Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, 47 N. Y. St. Repr. 395; City of New York v. Empire City Subway Co., 202 App. Div. 494; People ex rel. Rand v. Craig, 231 N. Y. 216.)
    
      Charles J. Miville and John J. Curtin for Brooklyn Daily Eagle, respondent.
    Mandamus will not lie where the acts of the Board did not constitute a completed transaction, and the additional steps to be taken required the use of discretion on the part of the city officials. (Matter of Friel, 101 App. Div. 155; 181 N. Y. 558; Matter of Ottinger v. Voorhis, 213 App. Div. 561; 241 N. Y. 49; Matter of Boyle v. Hugo, 101 Misc. Rep. 637; People ex rel. Goldenkoff v. Albany Law School, 198 App. Div. 460; People ex rel. Jones v. New York Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, 47 N. Y. St. Repr. 395; City of New York v. Empire City Subway Co., 202 App. Div. 494; People ex rel. Rand v. Craig, 231 N. Y. 216.)
   Per Curiam.

Mandamus is not the proper remedy. There was no clear, legal duty on the part of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to certify the resolution.

The question as to the power of the Comptroller is not decided. (Cf. Matter of Craig v. Matthews, 238 N. Y. 88; Craig v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, etc., 208 App. Div. 412; McCarthy v. Mills, 214 App. Div. 70.)

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed.