Farrington v. Archer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrington v. Archer

255 A.D. 855, 7 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5658

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 855 (Farrington v. Archer) 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

Farrington v. Archer, 255 A.D. 855, 7 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying petitioner’s application for a peremptory or an alternative order of mandamus directing respondent to issue a certificate of occupancy for the use of petitioner’s premises as a retail store, and dismissing the proceeding, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for trial in accordance with section 1295 of the Civil Practice Act. In view of respondent’s waiver of defects in form, the proceeding will be treated as one against a body or officer under the present article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. The pleadings raise triable issues of fact as to whether the zoning ordinance, as applied to petitioner’s property, is so unreasonable as to be confiscatory. Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying petitioner’s application for a peremptory or an alternative order of mandamus directing respondent to issue a certificate of occupancy for the use of petitioner’s premises as a retail store, and dismissing the proceeding, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for trial in accordance with section 1295 of the Civil Practice Act. In view of respondent’s waiver of defects in form, the proceeding will be treated as one against a body or officer under the present article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. The pleadings raise triable issues of fact as to whether the zoning ordinance, as applied to petitioner’s property, is so unreasonable as to be confiscatory. Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 855, 7 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrington-v-archer-nyappdiv-1938.