Summary
In Schnepel (supra, p. 96) the court expressly repudiated the contrary dictum expressed in Lewis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. (258 N.Y. 117) which was the predicate for the holding in Judd v. Board of Educ. (278 N.Y. 200). (See, also, Matter of Rumble v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 27 Misc.2d 939.)
Summary of this case from Glass v. Dept. of HealthOpinion
Argued November 20, 1950
Decided January 18, 1951
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, WHEELER, J.
Ruben A. Dankoff for appellants.
William H. Emerson, Corporation Counsel ( James H. Boomer of counsel), for respondent.
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, 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.
LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and and FROESSEL, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.