In re Willams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Willams

228 A.D. 668

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1929·Published

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

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.

In re Willams, 228 A.D. 668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

228 A.D. 668 (In re Willams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related