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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

1 A.D.2d 999, 151 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5383

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

DecidedMay 15, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 999 (Colodney v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc.) 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

Colodney v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 999, 151 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

This proceeding brought under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act is barred by the Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286). The petition patently demonstrates that the proceeding was begun more than four months after a determination by respondent censuring petitioners for improper business conduct (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1293; Matter of Mahony v. Conway, 281 App. Div. 1057; Matter of Endig v. McGoldrick, 282 App. Div. 677). The determination involved the exercise of discretion and judgment encompassed by subdivision 2 of section 1284 of the Civil Practice Act, and cannot be reviewed for alleged arbitrariness after the lapse of the four months’ period of its effective date (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286; Matter of Foy v. Brennan, 285 App. Div. 669; Matter of Weldon v. Rheinstein, 283 N. Y. 753). Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the petition dismissed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Cox, Frank and Valente, JJ. [1 Misc 2d 643.]

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

This proceeding brought under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act is barred by the Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286). The petition patently demonstrates that the proceeding was begun more than four months after a determination by respondent censuring petitioners for improper business conduct (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1293; Matter of Mahony v. Conway, 281 App. Div. 1057; Matter of Endig v. McGoldrick, 282 App. Div. 677). The determination involved the exercise of discretion and judgment encompassed by subdivision 2 of section 1284 of the Civil Practice Act, and cannot be reviewed for alleged arbitrariness after the lapse of the four months’ period of its effective date (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286; Matter of Foy v. Brennan, 285 App. Div. 669; Matter of Weldon v. Rheinstein, 283 N. Y. 753). Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the petition dismissed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Cox, Frank and Valente, JJ. [1 Misc 2d 643.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 999, 151 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colodney-v-new-york-coffee-sugar-exchange-inc-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack