Armour v. City of Newburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armour v. City of Newburgh

26 A.D.2d 626, 272 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 626 (Armour v. City of Newburgh) 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

Armour v. City of Newburgh, 26 A.D.2d 626, 272 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR (art. 78) to declare void an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Newburgh, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered (September 16, 1965, which (1) stayed the proceeding; (2) ordered Its dismissal if this cqurt should hold “ that Mr. Justice Bailey’s decision of March 30, 1965, dismissing the petition in the prior proceeding of Casterlin, et al. v. The City of Newburgh, Index No. 354/1965, was proper”; and (3) ordered that “upon a reversal of the aforesaid decision * * * an order may he entered consolidating both proceedings feu? all purposes.” Appeal dismissed, with costs to respondents. The order from which petitioners have appealed is not appealable as of right but only by permission, proof of which does not appear in the record (CPLR 5701, subd. [b], par. 1; 5701, subd. [c]). Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR (art. 78) to declare void an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Newburgh, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered (September 16, 1965, which (1) stayed the proceeding; (2) ordered Its dismissal if this cqurt should hold “ that Mr. Justice Bailey’s decision of March 30, 1965, dismissing the petition in the prior proceeding of Casterlin, et al. v. The City of Newburgh, Index No. 354/1965, was proper”; and (3) ordered that “upon a reversal of the aforesaid decision * * * an order may he entered consolidating both proceedings feu? all purposes.” Appeal dismissed, with costs to respondents. The order from which petitioners have appealed is not appealable as of right but only by permission, proof of which does not appear in the record (CPLR 5701, subd. [b], par. 1; 5701, subd. [c]). Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 626, 272 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armour-v-city-of-newburgh-nyappdiv-1966.