In re Preston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Preston

213 A.D. 830

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D. 830 (In re Preston) 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 Preston, 213 A.D. 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying application to file independent nominating petition and to print names on the official ballot for the ensuing annual village election is reversed on the law, and the motion granted. We agree with the holding of the court at Special Term that the effect of the Appellate Division decision [Abell v. Hunter, 211 App. Div. 467] is to restore the annexation and to leave all the parties where they were when the certiorari proceeding was commenced, and the greater village must be deemed to exist unless, in the certiorari proceeding, the consolidation or annexation proceeding shall be declared to have been illegal and ineffective. In our opinion the pending appeal to the Court of Appeals does not operate as a statutory stay. (New York Mail & Newspaper Trans. Co. v. Shea, 30 App. Div. 374; Sixth Avenue R. R. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 430; Genet v. President, etc., D. & H. C. Co., 113 id. 472.) Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur; Manning, J., dissents. Settle order on notice.

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

Order denying application to file independent nominating petition and to print names on the official ballot for the ensuing annual village election is reversed on the law, and the motion granted. We agree with the holding of the court at Special Term that the effect of the Appellate Division decision [Abell v. Hunter, 211 App. Div. 467] is to restore the annexation and to leave all the parties where they were when the certiorari proceeding was commenced, and the greater village must be deemed to exist unless, in the certiorari proceeding, the consolidation or annexation proceeding shall be declared to have been illegal and ineffective. In our opinion the pending appeal to the Court of Appeals does not operate as a statutory stay. (New York Mail & Newspaper Trans. Co. v. Shea, 30 App. Div. 374; Sixth Avenue R. R. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 430; Genet v. President, etc., D. & H. C. Co., 113 id. 472.) Kelly, P. J., Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur; Manning, J., dissents. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D. 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-preston-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack