Carino v. Pilon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carino v. Pilon

142 A.D.2d 996, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15036

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 996 (Carino v. Pilon) 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

Carino v. Pilon, 142 A.D.2d 996, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons set forth in the memorandum at Special Term (O’Donnell, J.). We add only that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper proceeding in which to challenge the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance (Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, 28 NY2d 449, 458). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, O’Donnell, J.— art 78.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons set forth in the memorandum at Special Term (O’Donnell, J.). We add only that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper proceeding in which to challenge the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance (Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, 28 NY2d 449, 458). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, O’Donnell, J.— art 78.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 996, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carino-v-pilon-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack