Ames v. Town of Kirkland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ames v. Town of Kirkland

212 A.D.2d 1057, 624 N.Y.S.2d 991

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 1057 (Ames v. Town of Kirkland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ames v. Town of Kirkland, 212 A.D.2d 1057, 624 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly found in favor of defendant. Because this is a declaratory judgment action, however, the court erred in dismissing the complaint. We modify the judgment appealed from by reinstating the complaint and by granting judgment in favor of defendant declaring that the March 9, 1987 "Ordinance of the Town of Kirkland to Provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Garage Sales” was properly enacted and did not deprive plaintiff of her property without due process of law. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Flemma, J.—Declaratory Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly found in favor of defendant. Because this is a declaratory judgment action, however, the court erred in dismissing the complaint. We modify the judgment appealed from by reinstating the complaint and by granting judgment in favor of defendant declaring that the March 9, 1987 "Ordinance of the Town of Kirkland to Provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Garage Sales” was properly enacted and did not deprive plaintiff of her property without due process of law. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Flemma, J.—Declaratory Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 1057, 624 N.Y.S.2d 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-v-town-of-kirkland-nyappdiv-1995.