In re Hall

New York Supreme Court

In re Hall

137 Misc. 448, 243 N.Y.S. 602, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1327

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 137 Misc. 448 (In re Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hall, 137 Misc. 448, 243 N.Y.S. 602, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1327 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Cropsey, J.

Order of certiorari dismissed, and determination of board of appeals confirmed, with costs. The board, having decided an appeal, has no power to open the matter and rehear it on the same facts. (People ex rel. Swedish Hospital v. Leo, 120 Misc. 355; [449]*449affd., 215 App. Div. 696; Matter of McGarry v. Walsh, 213 id. 289.)

When, however, a new appeal comes to the board from a new ruling, the matter must be passed upon. I am not prepared to hold that in such a case the decision need not consider the prior determination. If the facts and situation were the same in both appeals, the prior decision would seem to be binding and require a similar holding in the later appeal. But if there had been a substantial change the matter would be open for a new determination. Whether there was such a change would be primarily for the board to determine.

Here it has so found and I find nothing in the record to justify a reversal of that finding. Having the power to make its decision, the discretion of the board in the absence of bad faith may not be reviewed. (Matter of Boyd v. Walsh, 217 App. Div. 461.) I see no suggestion of bad faith here.

The application seems a reasonable one and one that could properly be granted.

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

Cropsey, J.

Order of certiorari dismissed, and determination of board of appeals confirmed, with costs. The board, having decided an appeal, has no power to open the matter and rehear it on the same facts. (People ex rel. Swedish Hospital v. Leo, 120 Misc. 355; [449]*449affd., 215 App. Div. 696; Matter of McGarry v. Walsh, 213 id. 289.)

When, however, a new appeal comes to the board from a new ruling, the matter must be passed upon. I am not prepared to hold that in such a case the decision need not consider the prior determination. If the facts and situation were the same in both appeals, the prior decision would seem to be binding and require a similar holding in the later appeal. But if there had been a substantial change the matter would be open for a new determination. Whether there was such a change would be primarily for the board to determine.

Here it has so found and I find nothing in the record to justify a reversal of that finding. Having the power to make its decision, the discretion of the board in the absence of bad faith may not be reviewed. (Matter of Boyd v. Walsh, 217 App. Div. 461.) I see no suggestion of bad faith here.

The application seems a reasonable one and one that could properly be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 Misc. 448, 243 N.Y.S. 602, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hall-nysupct-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack