Colodney v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Colodney v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc.

138 N.E.2d 810, 2 N.Y.2d 149, 157 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 618

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 30, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 N.E.2d 810 (Colodney v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc.) 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

Colodney v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc., 138 N.E.2d 810, 2 N.Y.2d 149, 157 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 618 (N.Y. 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act was properly dismissed on the ground that it had not been commenced within four months after the determination sought to be reviewed had become final and binding (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286). That determination was made by respondent’s board of managers after a hearing at which petitioners were presented with the charges and at which they testified, and was an act of a body exercising quasi-judicial functions and involving an exercise of judgment or discretion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1284, subd. 2). Since the proceeding was thus barred as untimely, we reach none of the questions argued by petitioners as to the alleged invalidity of the procedures taken by respondent against petitioners.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act was properly dismissed on the ground that it had not been commenced within four months after the determination sought to be reviewed had become final and binding (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286). That determination was made by respondent’s board of managers after a hearing at which petitioners were presented with the charges and at which they testified, and was an act of a body exercising quasi-judicial functions and involving an exercise of judgment or discretion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1284, subd. 2). Since the proceeding was thus barred as untimely, we reach none of the questions argued by petitioners as to the alleged invalidity of the procedures taken by respondent against petitioners.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 810, 2 N.Y.2d 149, 157 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colodney-v-new-york-coffee-sugar-exchange-inc-ny-1956.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack