English v. Waterfront Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

English v. Waterfront Commission

30 A.D.2d 558, 291 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3941

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

DecidedMay 20, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 558 (English v. Waterfront Commission) 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

English v. Waterfront Commission, 30 A.D.2d 558, 291 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent’s determination, dated March 7, 1967, which denied petitioner’s application for leave to reapply for registration as a checker, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 29, 1967, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Section 1.10 of the Waterfront Commission’s Regulations provides that reapplications may be submitted only “ upon leave of the commission for good cause shown ” (21 NYCRR 1.10). Reapplications are subject to that regulation (Matter of Brennan v. Rubino, 8 N Y 2d 16). Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a new hearing is not required upon a petition [559]*559for leave to reapply for registration (ef. L. 1953, eh. 882, § 1, art. XI, par. 1; § 5-g, as added by L. 1954, eh. 220, § 2). Moreover, since the basis for respondent’s action was perfectly obvious from the record, “ no hearing was required ” (Waterfront Comm. of N. Y. Harbor v. Pasquale, 65 N. J. Super. 498, 503). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent’s determination, dated March 7, 1967, which denied petitioner’s application for leave to reapply for registration as a checker, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 29, 1967, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Section 1.10 of the Waterfront Commission’s Regulations provides that reapplications may be submitted only “ upon leave of the commission for good cause shown ” (21 NYCRR 1.10). Reapplications are subject to that regulation (Matter of Brennan v. Rubino, 8 N Y 2d 16). Accordingly, we are of the opinion that a new hearing is not required upon a petition [559]*559for leave to reapply for registration (ef. L. 1953, eh. 882, § 1, art. XI, par. 1; § 5-g, as added by L. 1954, eh. 220, § 2). Moreover, since the basis for respondent’s action was perfectly obvious from the record, “ no hearing was required ” (Waterfront Comm. of N. Y. Harbor v. Pasquale, 65 N. J. Super. 498, 503). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 558, 291 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-waterfront-commission-nyappdiv-1968.