Calton Court, Inc. v. Switzer

221 A.D. 799
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 221 A.D. 799 (Calton Court, Inc. v. Switzer) 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
Calton Court, Inc. v. Switzer, 221 A.D. 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While the building inspector was entitled to a reasonable time in which to examine the petitioner’s application for the permit and the plans and specifications, the uncontradicted allegations in the petition justified the court at Special Term in finding that the neglect or refusal of the inspector to act .upon the plans was due to an ulterior motive, viz., to delay action to enable the common council to change the Zoning Ordinance of the city so as to prohibit the erection of the petitioner’s building and that it was not because of inability to examine the plans. The petition alleges that the plans and specifications were in accordance with law and that the inspector recognized this fact by issuing a temporary permit for excavation on April fifth. The answering affidavits raise no issue as to the regularity and validity of the petitioner’s plans and specifications. The allegations in the petition are not denied, and it is conceded that when the mandamus order was issued the permit was at once issued and the necessary changes exacted from the petitioner. No appeal was taken for some ten days. No application for a stay was made. Under the circumstances, we think the peremptory mandamus order should be affirmed, without costs. Present •—Kelly, P. J., Young, Kapper, Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ. Peremptory mandamus order unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Our Lady of Good Counsel Roman Catholic Church & School v. Ball
45 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)
Golisano v. Town Board of Macedon
31 A.D.2d 85 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Roto Realty, Inc. v. Volkman
49 Misc. 2d 506 (New York Supreme Court, 1966)
Rottkamp v. Young
21 A.D.2d 373 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Three Village Corners Shopping Center Inc. v. Lange
36 Misc. 2d 146 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Gramatan Hills Manor, Inc. v. Manganiello
30 Misc. 2d 117 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc.
347 P.2d 919 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1960)
Munns v. Stenman
314 P.2d 67 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Atlas v. Dick
275 A.D.2d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Atlas v. Dick
192 Misc. 843 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)
Dubow v. Ross
254 A.D. 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
MacEwen v. City of New Rochelle
149 Misc. 251 (New York Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 A.D. 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calton-court-inc-v-switzer-nyappdiv-1927.