In re Marks
This text of 225 A.D. 875 (In re Marks) 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.
Opinion
Order denying motion for peremptory mandamus order and order denying motion for reargument unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. If the property in question was, at the time of the passage of the Building Zone [876]*876Resolution, devoted to a non-conforming use, that use might be continued, and relator would be entitled to the certificate of occupancy as matter of strict legal right, to enforce which mandamus would he. But the premises were not at that time devoted to such non-conforming use, and respondent’s refusal of the certificate was, therefore, justified. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Carswell and Scudder, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
225 A.D. 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marks-nyappdiv-1929.