Holwell v. Meisser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holwell v. Meisser

28 A.D.2d 1003, 284 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3301

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 1003 (Holwell v. Meisser) 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

Holwell v. Meisser, 28 A.D.2d 1003, 284 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, J. dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: I agree with the majority that the petition was properly dismissed but deem this a reason for affirmance, not for reversal and remission for a hearing as to the excessiveness of respondents’ charge of $1.25 per enrollment book. The question of exeessiveness is plainly irrelevant since petitioner seeks copies of the books free of amy charge, whether excessive or not. Moreover, the $1.25 charge is not so grossly high as to be patently excessive; and petitioner alleges no facts to support his claim of excessiveness. Also, the pleadings raise no constitutional issue.

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

Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, J. dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: I agree with the majority that the petition was properly dismissed but deem this a reason for affirmance, not for reversal and remission for a hearing as to the excessiveness of respondents’ charge of $1.25 per enrollment book. The question of exeessiveness is plainly irrelevant since petitioner seeks copies of the books free of amy charge, whether excessive or not. Moreover, the $1.25 charge is not so grossly high as to be patently excessive; and petitioner alleges no facts to support his claim of excessiveness. Also, the pleadings raise no constitutional issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 1003, 284 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holwell-v-meisser-nyappdiv-1967.