Boryszewski v. Bridges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boryszewski v. Bridges

45 A.D.2d 789, 357 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624

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

DecidedJune 25, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 789 (Boryszewski v. Bridges) 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

Boryszewski v. Bridges, 45 A.D.2d 789, 357 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal, hy permission, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County, which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss a petition by three individual citizen-taxpayers challenging the constitutionality of the legislative and executive retirement plan (L. 1968, ch. 219, as amd.) and a “budget statute” providing for payments to members of the State Legislature “in lieu of expenses ”. We cannot concur in Special Term’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The petitioners are indisputably not personally aggrieved and thus have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes in question (Matter of Taylor v. Sise, 33 N Y 2d 357; Hidley v. Rockefeller, 28 N Y 2d 439; St. Glair v. Yonkers Raceway, 13 N Y 2d 72, cert. den. 375 U. S. 970; Matter of Bell v. Levitt, 44 A D 2d 742). We see no basis presented in the instant petition to vary this well established rule. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the petition should have been granted. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and petition dismissed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal, hy permission, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Albany County, which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss a petition by three individual citizen-taxpayers challenging the constitutionality of the legislative and executive retirement plan (L. 1968, ch. 219, as amd.) and a “budget statute” providing for payments to members of the State Legislature “in lieu of expenses ”. We cannot concur in Special Term’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The petitioners are indisputably not personally aggrieved and thus have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes in question (Matter of Taylor v. Sise, 33 N Y 2d 357; Hidley v. Rockefeller, 28 N Y 2d 439; St. Glair v. Yonkers Raceway, 13 N Y 2d 72, cert. den. 375 U. S. 970; Matter of Bell v. Levitt, 44 A D 2d 742). We see no basis presented in the instant petition to vary this well established rule. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the petition should have been granted. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and petition dismissed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 789, 357 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boryszewski-v-bridges-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack