City of New York v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Wing

248 A.D.2d 116, 669 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1922

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 116 (City of New York v. Wing) 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

City of New York v. Wing, 248 A.D.2d 116, 669 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered November 8, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination assigning a cost savings target to petitioner pursuant to Laws of 1995 (ch 81, § 92) and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, properly deferring to respondent’s understanding of operational practices and expert evaluation of factual data pertinent to how to best achieve the cost savings purpose of the statute, correctly held that respondent’s methodology for assigning cost savings targets to the local social services districts, such as petitioner, was not irrational (see, New York State Assn. of Counties v Axelrod, 78 NY2d 158, 166-167; Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451, 458-459). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered November 8, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination assigning a cost savings target to petitioner pursuant to Laws of 1995 (ch 81, § 92) and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, properly deferring to respondent’s understanding of operational practices and expert evaluation of factual data pertinent to how to best achieve the cost savings purpose of the statute, correctly held that respondent’s methodology for assigning cost savings targets to the local social services districts, such as petitioner, was not irrational (see, New York State Assn. of Counties v Axelrod, 78 NY2d 158, 166-167; Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451, 458-459). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 116, 669 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-wing-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack