Birkeland v. State

474 N.E.2d 608, 64 N.Y.2d 663, 485 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4924
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 11, 1984·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

Birkeland v. State, 474 N.E.2d 608, 64 N.Y.2d 663, 485 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4924 (N.Y. 1984).

474 N.E.2d 608 (Birkeland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gomes v. Vermyck, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 00849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Wood v. Irving
647 N.E.2d 1332 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
Wood v. Irving
199 A.D.2d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Dachenhausen v. Crosson
154 Misc. 2d 132 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Marino v. New York
629 F. Supp. 912 (E.D. New York, 1986)
Gribetz v. Evans
113 A.D.2d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)