Kaplan v. LaPolla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. LaPolla

124 A.D.2d 971, 508 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62283

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 971 (Kaplan v. LaPolla) 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

Kaplan v. LaPolla, 124 A.D.2d 971, 508 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The petition was properly dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner fails to allege or demonstrate an injury in fact (see, Matter of MFY Legal Servs. v Dudley, 67 NY2d 706; Matter of Department of Personnel v City Civ. Serv. Commn., 60 NY2d 436, rearg denied sub nom. Matter of City of New York v City Civ. Serv. Commn., 61 NY2d 759; Matter of Bradford Cent. [972]*972School Dist. v Ambach, 56 NY2d 158). While it is true that the Court of Appeals has embraced an expanded view of standing to permit so-called "taxpayer” suits, such actions are authorized where the suit challenges or relates to fiscal matters or where the failure to accord standing would present an "impenetrable barrier” to any judicial scrutiny (New York State Coalition for Criminal Justice v Coughlin, 64 NY2d 660; Matter of Urban League v County of Monroe, 49 NY2d 551; Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361; see also, State Finance Law § 123-b; General Municipal Law § 51). Neither concern is presented in this case. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The petition was properly dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner fails to allege or demonstrate an injury in fact (see, Matter of MFY Legal Servs. v Dudley, 67 NY2d 706; Matter of Department of Personnel v City Civ. Serv. Commn., 60 NY2d 436, rearg denied sub nom. Matter of City of New York v City Civ. Serv. Commn., 61 NY2d 759; Matter of Bradford Cent. [972]*972School Dist. v Ambach, 56 NY2d 158). While it is true that the Court of Appeals has embraced an expanded view of standing to permit so-called "taxpayer” suits, such actions are authorized where the suit challenges or relates to fiscal matters or where the failure to accord standing would present an "impenetrable barrier” to any judicial scrutiny (New York State Coalition for Criminal Justice v Coughlin, 64 NY2d 660; Matter of Urban League v County of Monroe, 49 NY2d 551; Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361; see also, State Finance Law § 123-b; General Municipal Law § 51). Neither concern is presented in this case. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 971, 508 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-lapolla-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack