In re Roosevelt

New York Court of Appeals

In re Roosevelt

148 N.E.2d 895, 4 N.Y.2d 19, 171 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 1153

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 148 N.E.2d 895 (In re Roosevelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Roosevelt, 148 N.E.2d 895, 4 N.Y.2d 19, 171 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 1153 (N.Y. 1958).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This proceeding was instituted pursuant to section 10 of the Membership Corporations Law to obtain judicial approval of the incorporation of a political club which appropriated the name of a political party and a metropolitan label. Approval has been denied by the courts below because, in their view, the consent required by the explicit provisions of the applicable section of the statute was reasonably withheld by the chairman of the county committee of the particular political party.

[21]*21The single issue presented is whether the withholding of such consent was “ unreasonable ” within the meaning of that section.

The courts below have concluded that it was not. Since there is support in the record for such determination, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This proceeding was instituted pursuant to section 10 of the Membership Corporations Law to obtain judicial approval of the incorporation of a political club which appropriated the name of a political party and a metropolitan label. Approval has been denied by the courts below because, in their view, the consent required by the explicit provisions of the applicable section of the statute was reasonably withheld by the chairman of the county committee of the particular political party.

[21]*21The single issue presented is whether the withholding of such consent was “ unreasonable ” within the meaning of that section.

The courts below have concluded that it was not. Since there is support in the record for such determination, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.E.2d 895, 4 N.Y.2d 19, 171 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 1153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roosevelt-ny-1958.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack