In re Huie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Huie

24 A.D.2d 707, 261 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 707 (In re Huie) 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

In re Huie, 24 A.D.2d 707, 261 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These eases involve the authority of Special Term to appoint a new commission or to extend the life of an existing commission, in each ease after an initial period in excess of one year and an extension exceeding eight months; this in alleged contravention of, and certainly being inconsistent with the provision that “ the supreme court upon application and good reasons shown therefor may extend the time for the taking of testimony or for the preparation and filing of such [Commissioners’] report, or both, beyond one year for a period not exceeding eight months.” (Administrative Code of the City of New York, § K51-14.0.) Construing this provision in the original enactment (L. 1905, ch. 724, § 14), Special Term, as long ago as 1911, held appointments after, or extensions beyond one year and eight months unauthorized and we affirmed (Matter of Board of Water Supply, 74 Misc. 146, affd. 151 App. Div. 913); and no subsequent statutory amendment or decisional law has weakened that holding. We do not pass on the additional contentions presented. Order, in each case, reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions denied, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

These eases involve the authority of Special Term to appoint a new commission or to extend the life of an existing commission, in each ease after an initial period in excess of one year and an extension exceeding eight months; this in alleged contravention of, and certainly being inconsistent with the provision that “ the supreme court upon application and good reasons shown therefor may extend the time for the taking of testimony or for the preparation and filing of such [Commissioners’] report, or both, beyond one year for a period not exceeding eight months.” (Administrative Code of the City of New York, § K51-14.0.) Construing this provision in the original enactment (L. 1905, ch. 724, § 14), Special Term, as long ago as 1911, held appointments after, or extensions beyond one year and eight months unauthorized and we affirmed (Matter of Board of Water Supply, 74 Misc. 146, affd. 151 App. Div. 913); and no subsequent statutory amendment or decisional law has weakened that holding. We do not pass on the additional contentions presented. Order, in each case, reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions denied, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 707, 261 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-huie-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack