Delakas v. Mintz

New York Court of Appeals

Delakas v. Mintz

979 N.E.2d 799, 19 N.Y.3d 1056

DecidedOctober 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 979 N.E.2d 799 (Delakas v. Mintz) 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

Delakas v. Mintz, 979 N.E.2d 799, 19 N.Y.3d 1056 (N.Y. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs to deny petitioner’s license to operate a newsstand [1058]*1058because petitioner was not financially dependent on the licensee within the meaning of 6 RCNY 2-64 (a) (12) had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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