J. W. J. Check Cashing Corp. v. Siebert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

J. W. J. Check Cashing Corp. v. Siebert

91 A.D.2d 1034, 458 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16357

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1034 (J. W. J. Check Cashing Corp. v. Siebert) 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

J. W. J. Check Cashing Corp. v. Siebert, 91 A.D.2d 1034, 458 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by petitioner from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Composto, J.), dated April 30,1982, dismissing a proceeding to review a determination of the respondent Superintendent of Banks, which granted an application of the Island Check Cashing Corp. for permission to change its location. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The record establishes that the respondent Superintendent of Banks conducted an investigation to insure that the “convenience and advantage of the area” would be promoted by the change in location in question and she rationally based her decision thereon (see Banking Law, § 369, subd 1). The determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by petitioner from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Composto, J.), dated April 30,1982, dismissing a proceeding to review a determination of the respondent Superintendent of Banks, which granted an application of the Island Check Cashing Corp. for permission to change its location. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The record establishes that the respondent Superintendent of Banks conducted an investigation to insure that the “convenience and advantage of the area” would be promoted by the change in location in question and she rationally based her decision thereon (see Banking Law, § 369, subd 1). The determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 1034, 458 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-w-j-check-cashing-corp-v-siebert-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack