Buckley v. Fasbender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buckley v. Fasbender

275 A.D.2d 853

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

DecidedMay 23, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 853 (Buckley v. Fasbender) 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

Buckley v. Fasbender, 275 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Although it is our opinion that the amendment of the zoning ordinance by respondents, which involved the exercise of a legislative function, may not be reviewed under the form of procedure adopted by appellant (Matter of Neddo v. Schrade, 270 N. Y. 97; Matter of Newbrand v. City of Yonkers, 285 N. Y. 164, 174), we have determined the questions presented on the merits, in view of the acquiescence by respondents in the procedure adopted, and the request by counsel, on argument, that we ignore procedural defects. In affirming the conclusion reached at Special Term, that the enactment of the amendment to the Building Zone Ordinance is valid, legal and constitutional, we do not determine that the amendment to the ordinance is presently effective. (Cf. Town Law, § 269.) That question is not presented on this appeal. Present — 'Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See post, p. 1001.]

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

Although it is our opinion that the amendment of the zoning ordinance by respondents, which involved the exercise of a legislative function, may not be reviewed under the form of procedure adopted by appellant (Matter of Neddo v. Schrade, 270 N. Y. 97; Matter of Newbrand v. City of Yonkers, 285 N. Y. 164, 174), we have determined the questions presented on the merits, in view of the acquiescence by respondents in the procedure adopted, and the request by counsel, on argument, that we ignore procedural defects. In affirming the conclusion reached at Special Term, that the enactment of the amendment to the Building Zone Ordinance is valid, legal and constitutional, we do not determine that the amendment to the ordinance is presently effective. (Cf. Town Law, § 269.) That question is not presented on this appeal. Present — 'Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See post, p. 1001.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-fasbender-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack