Schnepel v. Bd. of Educ., 96 N.E.2d 617 (N.Y. 1951). · Go Syfert
Search
Schnepel v. Bd. of Educ., 96 N.E.2d 617 (N.Y. 1951). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951 1988 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thelma B. Schnepel
v.
Board of Education of the City of Rochester
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 18, 1951.
Published opinion
96 N.E.2d 617
Ruben A. Dankoff for appellants., William H. Emerson, Corporation Counsel (James H. Boomer of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Section 51 of the General Municipal Law authorizes actions by taxpayers against illegal acts of £< all officers, agents, commissioners and other persons acting, or who have acted, for and on behalf of any county, town, village or municipal corporation in this state ”. Section 2 of the same statute defines a “ municipal corporation ” as including ££ only a county, town, city and village.”

A board of education is not a municipal corporation within the meaning of the above provisions (see Hamilton v. Baker, [*96] 243 N. Y. 578; Brooks v. Wyman, 246 N. Y. 534; Blackburn v. Clements, 297 N. Y. 971). Suggestion of a contrary viewpoint may be found in Lewis v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y. (258 N. Y. 117) but, in our opinion, should not be accepted.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughban, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.