Fagelman v. Ingraham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fagelman v. Ingraham

34 A.D.2d 543, 309 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5360

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 543 (Fagelman v. Ingraham) 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

Fagelman v. Ingraham, 34 A.D.2d 543, 309 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action [544]*544for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 23, 1969, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of said court entered January 30, 1969 pursuant to the order. Order and judgment modified, on the law, (a) by striking from the order the second decretal paragraph, which directs the clerk to enter judgment, (b) by striking from the judgment the provision dismissing the action, and (c) by adding to the order and the judgment a provision declaring that the rules and regulations adopted by the defendants setting forth eligibility requirements for inclusion on the roster of approved orthodontists are valid and do not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff or others similarly situated. As so modified, order and judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the complaint sufficiently sets forth a cause of action for a declaratory judgment; and hence the complaint should not have been dismissed and judgment should have been rendered declaring the rights of the parties (see Rockland Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 N. Y. 45, 51; cf. Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 340). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action [544]*544for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 23, 1969, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of said court entered January 30, 1969 pursuant to the order. Order and judgment modified, on the law, (a) by striking from the order the second decretal paragraph, which directs the clerk to enter judgment, (b) by striking from the judgment the provision dismissing the action, and (c) by adding to the order and the judgment a provision declaring that the rules and regulations adopted by the defendants setting forth eligibility requirements for inclusion on the roster of approved orthodontists are valid and do not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff or others similarly situated. As so modified, order and judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the complaint sufficiently sets forth a cause of action for a declaratory judgment; and hence the complaint should not have been dismissed and judgment should have been rendered declaring the rights of the parties (see Rockland Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 N. Y. 45, 51; cf. Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 340). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 543, 309 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fagelman-v-ingraham-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack