In re Tothill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tothill

272 A.D.2d 786

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

DecidedApril 30, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 786 (In re Tothill) 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 Tothill, 272 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders reversed on- the law, with costs, and petition dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the petition (a) was not sufficient in that the notice did not state- the facts required by the amendment of May 27, 1946, to the Office of Price Administration regulations, and (b) that the facts established did not show an immediate compelling necessity. All concur, except Dowling and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (See Ellenbogen v. Caldwell, 270 App. Div. 946; Matter of Hollis v. Gelbach, 270 App. Div. 1063, motion for leave to appeal denied 296 N. Y. 1058; Staudigl v. Harper, 173 P. 2d 343 [Cal.].) (The order appealed from affirms a final order of the Lockport City Court awarding possession of certain premises to the petitioner.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, McCurn and Larkin, JJ.

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

Orders reversed on- the law, with costs, and petition dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the petition (a) was not sufficient in that the notice did not state- the facts required by the amendment of May 27, 1946, to the Office of Price Administration regulations, and (b) that the facts established did not show an immediate compelling necessity. All concur, except Dowling and Harris, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance. (See Ellenbogen v. Caldwell, 270 App. Div. 946; Matter of Hollis v. Gelbach, 270 App. Div. 1063, motion for leave to appeal denied 296 N. Y. 1058; Staudigl v. Harper, 173 P. 2d 343 [Cal.].) (The order appealed from affirms a final order of the Lockport City Court awarding possession of certain premises to the petitioner.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, McCurn and Larkin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tothill-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack