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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1986·Published

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] School 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] School 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.

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

124 A.D.2d 971 (Kaplan v. LaPolla) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related