Arbill Gasoline Stations, Inc. v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arbill Gasoline Stations, Inc. v. Murdock

250 A.D. 761, 293 N.Y.S. 752, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8882

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 761 (Arbill Gasoline Stations, Inc. v. Murdock) 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

Arbill Gasoline Stations, Inc. v. Murdock, 250 A.D. 761, 293 N.Y.S. 752, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion for order of peremptory mandamus unanimously affirmed on the law and not in the exercise of discretion, with costs. The appellant has mistaken its remedy. The board has acted, though it may be unwisely. These acts may be reviewed by certiorari if it is not too late; or the applicant may make a new application that shows a new and different state of facts containing merit which might cause a different view to be taken from that taken on the first application, which was denied. We express [762]*762no opinion on these subjects. The matter is one of sound discretion vested in the board. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

Order denying motion for order of peremptory mandamus unanimously affirmed on the law and not in the exercise of discretion, with costs. The appellant has mistaken its remedy. The board has acted, though it may be unwisely. These acts may be reviewed by certiorari if it is not too late; or the applicant may make a new application that shows a new and different state of facts containing merit which might cause a different view to be taken from that taken on the first application, which was denied. We express [762]*762no opinion on these subjects. The matter is one of sound discretion vested in the board. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 761, 293 N.Y.S. 752, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbill-gasoline-stations-inc-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1937.