Coppola v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coppola v. City of New York

231 A.D. 846, 246 N.Y.S. 487

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 846 (Coppola v. City of New York) 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

Coppola v. City of New York, 231 A.D. 846, 246 N.Y.S. 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order enjoining defendants, pendente lite, affirmed, with ten dollars costs ■ and disbursements. We place our affirmance upon the following grounds: The rules and regulations of the department of public markets of the city of New York, approved by the board of estimate and apportionment in 1923, limit “ permits ” to a monthly period only. The regulation complained of provides for “ annual permits.” We are of opinion that the commissioner has thus attempted to modify the rule approved by the board of estimate and apportionment, and that, without that board’s approval, the commissioner’s act was beyond his authority. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Order enjoining defendants, pendente lite, affirmed, with ten dollars costs ■ and disbursements. We place our affirmance upon the following grounds: The rules and regulations of the department of public markets of the city of New York, approved by the board of estimate and apportionment in 1923, limit “ permits ” to a monthly period only. The regulation complained of provides for “ annual permits.” We are of opinion that the commissioner has thus attempted to modify the rule approved by the board of estimate and apportionment, and that, without that board’s approval, the commissioner’s act was beyond his authority. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 846, 246 N.Y.S. 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppola-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1930.