Burkhart v. Town of Ontario

105 A.D.2d 1056, 482 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21130
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1984·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed against defendant town. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying summary judgment to the Town of Ontario. In enacting the ordinance, the town was acting in a legislative capacity. As such, it has immunity which rests upon a regard for sound principles of government (see B & J Investors Corp. v Town Bd., 56 AD2d 882). “We know of no principle of law under which the state becomes liable because of the adoption of an unconstitutional statute.” (Barrett v State of New York, 220 NY 423, 429-430.) (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Rosenbloom, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

Burkhart v. Town of Ontario, 105 A.D.2d 1056, 482 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

105 A.D.2d 1056 (Burkhart v. Town of Ontario) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Katz v. Village of Southampton
244 A.D.2d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)