De Leyer v. American Horse Shows Ass'n.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Leyer v. American Horse Shows Ass'n.

27 A.D.2d 655, 276 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4962

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 655 (De Leyer v. American Horse Shows Ass'n.) 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

De Leyer v. American Horse Shows Ass'n., 27 A.D.2d 655, 276 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper) appealed from remitting the proceedings to the respondent-appellant, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant, and the petition is dismissed. In this proceeding the petition in effect concedes conduct which would amount to a violation of the rules and regulations of the respondent-appellant association. Special Term apparently considered the violation charged to be a minor one and felt that the penalty imposed for such violation was too harsh. In so doing the court substituted its judgment for that of the association, and that it may not do unless the penalty imposed can be deemed to be an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803, subd 3). On this record we may not come to such conclusion. Indeed, there is ample basis to consider the violations charged, and proven by the facts, to be serious violations of the respondents’ rules, and we cannot say that the penalty imposed was unjustified or too severe in the circumstances. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper) appealed from remitting the proceedings to the respondent-appellant, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant, and the petition is dismissed. In this proceeding the petition in effect concedes conduct which would amount to a violation of the rules and regulations of the respondent-appellant association. Special Term apparently considered the violation charged to be a minor one and felt that the penalty imposed for such violation was too harsh. In so doing the court substituted its judgment for that of the association, and that it may not do unless the penalty imposed can be deemed to be an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803, subd 3). On this record we may not come to such conclusion. Indeed, there is ample basis to consider the violations charged, and proven by the facts, to be serious violations of the respondents’ rules, and we cannot say that the penalty imposed was unjustified or too severe in the circumstances. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 655, 276 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-leyer-v-american-horse-shows-assn-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack