In re Willams
This text of 228 A.D. 668 (In re Willams) 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, in so far as it grants motion for an alternative mandamus order, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546; affd., 237 N. Y. 617.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents, being of opinion that the remedy of the petitioner is by application for a variance upon the ground of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and that an alternative mandamus order, if granted, substitutes a jury in lieu of the authorities appointed by the Legislature to establish zones under the Zoning Laws.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
228 A.D. 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-willams-nyappdiv-1929.