Birkeland v. State
This text of 474 N.E.2d 608 (Birkeland v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinions of Justice Sol R. Dunkin, Supreme Court, Queens County, and Justice William C. Thompson at the Appellate Division.
We would emphasize that the Legislature’s enactment of chapter 846 occurred in the aftermath of the reorganization of the New York State court system and was parallel with similar legislation applicable, State-wide, to the other State judicial districts. In view of this particular situation and the express finding by the Legislature that the normal competitive procedures would greatly disrupt the functioning of the State court system, the statute cannot be said to offend the constitutional mandate (NY Const, art V, § 6).
Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Chief Judge Cooke taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
474 N.E.2d 608, 64 N.Y.2d 663, 485 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birkeland-v-state-ny-1984.