Klein v. City Council

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. City Council

236 A.D.2d 446, 654 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1224

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 446 (Klein v. City Council) 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

Klein v. City Council, 236 A.D.2d 446, 654 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring a proposed lease of certain City-owned tennis courts to be null and void, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered May 10, 1996, which determined that the lease was not invalid and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which dismissed the action; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the lease is valid.

The sole issue raised by the appellant concerns the propriety of a negative declaration issued pursuant to SEQRA by the respondent City Council for the City of Long Beach. However, since the appellant did not raise this issue in the proceeding before the Supreme Court, it is not preserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Arbor Oaks Civic Assn. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 112 AD2d 988, 988-989; Matter of Jonas v Town of Colonie, 110 AD2d 945, 946-947). The complaint should not have been dismissed, but an appropriate judgment, declaring that the lease is valid, should be entered (see, Lanza v Wagner, [447]*44711 NY2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901). Rosenblatt, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring a proposed lease of certain City-owned tennis courts to be null and void, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered May 10, 1996, which determined that the lease was not invalid and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which dismissed the action; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the lease is valid.

The sole issue raised by the appellant concerns the propriety of a negative declaration issued pursuant to SEQRA by the respondent City Council for the City of Long Beach. However, since the appellant did not raise this issue in the proceeding before the Supreme Court, it is not preserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Arbor Oaks Civic Assn. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 112 AD2d 988, 988-989; Matter of Jonas v Town of Colonie, 110 AD2d 945, 946-947). The complaint should not have been dismissed, but an appropriate judgment, declaring that the lease is valid, should be entered (see, Lanza v Wagner, [447]*44711 NY2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901). Rosenblatt, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 446, 654 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-city-council-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack