Canner v. Delameter

436 N.E.2d 1340, 56 N.Y.2d 724, 451 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3381
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 11, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 436 N.E.2d 1340 (Canner v. Delameter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Canner v. Delameter, 436 N.E.2d 1340, 56 N.Y.2d 724, 451 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3381 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. If the Town of Oneonta did not have jurisdiction over Lot 59, it could not grant a variance. If, on the other hand, the town did have jurisdiction, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that respondents’ determination was arbitrary and capricious.

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

Related

Poster v. Strough
299 A.D.2d 127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. G.C. Zarnas & Co.
498 A.2d 605 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
436 N.E.2d 1340, 56 N.Y.2d 724, 451 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canner-v-delameter-ny-1982.