Elefante v. Hanna

New York Court of Appeals

Elefante v. Hanna

357 N.E.2d 1011, 40 N.Y.2d 908, 389 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3078

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 357 N.E.2d 1011 (Elefante v. Hanna) 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

Elefante v. Hanna, 357 N.E.2d 1011, 40 N.Y.2d 908, 389 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3078 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to respondents, to the extent that the petition is dismissed. We do not agree with the holding that petitioner has not been guilty of laches. Certainly, from August 26, 1976, when the common council adopted the resolution approving the new city charter, and conceivably from [909]*909December 11, 1975 when the Mayor held a public hearing and approved the local law, petitioner could have proceeded with dispatch to challenge the creation of a Charter Revision Commission. To have waited until October 8, 1976, shortly before the general election worked prejudice to the respondents and may not be countenanced.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order modified, with costs to respondents, in accordance with memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to respondents, to the extent that the petition is dismissed. We do not agree with the holding that petitioner has not been guilty of laches. Certainly, from August 26, 1976, when the common council adopted the resolution approving the new city charter, and conceivably from [909]*909December 11, 1975 when the Mayor held a public hearing and approved the local law, petitioner could have proceeded with dispatch to challenge the creation of a Charter Revision Commission. To have waited until October 8, 1976, shortly before the general election worked prejudice to the respondents and may not be countenanced.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order modified, with costs to respondents, in accordance with memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.E.2d 1011, 40 N.Y.2d 908, 389 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elefante-v-hanna-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack