Aster Agency, Inc. v. Miller

New York Supreme Court

Aster Agency, Inc. v. Miller

13 Misc. 2d 946, 181 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1876

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 9, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 Misc. 2d 946 (Aster Agency, Inc. v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aster Agency, Inc. v. Miller, 13 Misc. 2d 946, 181 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1876 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Percy D. Stoddart, J.

Application [for order under article 78 of Civil Practice] granted. The respondents had no legal basis for their disapproval of the plat or map involved herein. The mere fact that the State may extend a highway through a portion of the petitioner’s property does not sustain the respondents’ position. As Mr. Justice Hogan wrote in a similar proceeding: “ If the Long Island State Park Commission wishes to acquire this property, it should move promptly for an order condemning it, and thus minimize the damage to the petitioner. It cannot, by a mere statement of intent, which binds no one, compel an owner to maintain his property in an [947]*947unproductive state for an indefinite period, in the manner here proposed.” (Matter of Lido Links Homes v. Young, 13 Misc 2d 157,158.)

Settle order on notice.

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

Percy D. Stoddart, J.

Application [for order under article 78 of Civil Practice] granted. The respondents had no legal basis for their disapproval of the plat or map involved herein. The mere fact that the State may extend a highway through a portion of the petitioner’s property does not sustain the respondents’ position. As Mr. Justice Hogan wrote in a similar proceeding: “ If the Long Island State Park Commission wishes to acquire this property, it should move promptly for an order condemning it, and thus minimize the damage to the petitioner. It cannot, by a mere statement of intent, which binds no one, compel an owner to maintain his property in an [947]*947unproductive state for an indefinite period, in the manner here proposed.” (Matter of Lido Links Homes v. Young, 13 Misc 2d 157,158.)

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 2d 946, 181 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aster-agency-inc-v-miller-nysupct-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack