Elbert v. Village of North Hills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elbert v. Village of North Hills

262 A.D. 856, 28 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262

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

DecidedJune 9, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 856 (Elbert v. Village of North Hills) 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

Elbert v. Village of North Hills, 262 A.D. 856, 28 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to procure a judgment declaring a certain resolution passed by the board of trustees of the village of North Hills, together with certain amendments thereto, void, unconstitutional and ineffective, and for other relief, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as dismisses the complaint upon the ground that upon the face thereof it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion in so far as it seeks dismissal of the complaint denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 386; Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 229, 230; Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546; affd., 237 N. Y. 617.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought to procure a judgment declaring a certain resolution passed by the board of trustees of the village of North Hills, together with certain amendments thereto, void, unconstitutional and ineffective, and for other relief, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as dismisses the complaint upon the ground that upon the face thereof it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion in so far as it seeks dismissal of the complaint denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 386; Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 229, 230; Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546; affd., 237 N. Y. 617.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 856, 28 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elbert-v-village-of-north-hills-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack