East Bay Development Corp. v. Bear

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East Bay Development Corp. v. Bear

31 A.D.2d 756, 298 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4774

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 756 (East Bay Development Corp. v. Bear) 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

East Bay Development Corp. v. Bear, 31 A.D.2d 756, 298 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by petitioner to clarify decision of this court dated October 21, 1968, and for alternative relief. Motion granted to the following extent: Decision dated October 21, 1968 (30 A D 2d 973) amended by adding the following language at the end of .the final paragraph thereof: “If, on the other hand, it should appear that there were two separate and distinct grounds for the Commission’s refusal, ,the mere fact that petitioner can comply with the 100-foot requirement would not appear to warrant the annulment because we cannot say, on the record before us, that the Commission acted arbitrarily in finding that there had not been such a change in circumstances as to warrant the annulment.” Order of the same date amended accordingly. [757]*757In all other respects motion denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Munder and Martuseello, J.J., concur.

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

Motion by petitioner to clarify decision of this court dated October 21, 1968, and for alternative relief. Motion granted to the following extent: Decision dated October 21, 1968 (30 A D 2d 973) amended by adding the following language at the end of .the final paragraph thereof: “If, on the other hand, it should appear that there were two separate and distinct grounds for the Commission’s refusal, ,the mere fact that petitioner can comply with the 100-foot requirement would not appear to warrant the annulment because we cannot say, on the record before us, that the Commission acted arbitrarily in finding that there had not been such a change in circumstances as to warrant the annulment.” Order of the same date amended accordingly. [757]*757In all other respects motion denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Munder and Martuseello, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 756, 298 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-bay-development-corp-v-bear-nyappdiv-1969.