Carino v. Pilon
142 A.D.2d 996, 530 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15036
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 1988·Published·Cited by 4 cases
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
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).
142 A.D.2d 996 (Carino v. Pilon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Town of Deerfield v. Federal Communications Commission
992 F.2d 420 (Second Circuit, 1993)
Carino v. Town of Deerfield (Oneida County, NY)
750 F. Supp. 1156 (N.D. New York, 1990)
Jensen v. Village of Old Westbury
160 A.D.2d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)