Garden Estates, Inc. v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garden Estates, Inc. v. Murdock

241 A.D. 761

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 761 (Garden Estates, Inc. v. Murdock) 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

Garden Estates, Inc. v. Murdock, 241 A.D. 761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order confirming the determination of the board of standards and appeals and dismissing the order of certiorari reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, certiorari order sustained and the determination of the board of standards and appeals annulled on the merits. The record is barren of facts, pertinent and material, to sustain the grounds of the decision appealed from, and the return fails to show any facts from which the inference of hardship may be drawn. (People ex rel. Fordham M. R. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: The matter is one which rests in the discretion of the board. A sufficient though somewhat imperfectly evidenced basis for its action appears in the record. A court should not substitute its discretion for that of the body to whom the statute intrusts the exercise of discretion. Kapper, J., not voting.

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

Order confirming the determination of the board of standards and appeals and dismissing the order of certiorari reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, certiorari order sustained and the determination of the board of standards and appeals annulled on the merits. The record is barren of facts, pertinent and material, to sustain the grounds of the decision appealed from, and the return fails to show any facts from which the inference of hardship may be drawn. (People ex rel. Fordham M. R. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: The matter is one which rests in the discretion of the board. A sufficient though somewhat imperfectly evidenced basis for its action appears in the record. A court should not substitute its discretion for that of the body to whom the statute intrusts the exercise of discretion. Kapper, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garden-estates-inc-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack