Knapp & McCarthy Taxi, Inc. v. Village of Hastings-on-Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knapp & McCarthy Taxi, Inc. v. Village of Hastings-on-Hudson

270 A.D.2d 458, 705 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3192

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 458 (Knapp & McCarthy Taxi, Inc. v. Village of Hastings-on-Hudson) 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

Knapp & McCarthy Taxi, Inc. v. Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, 270 A.D.2d 458, 705 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Code § 87-20 (A) (1) unconstitutional insofar as it requires holders of taxi cab licenses to maintain a central place of business within the corporate limits of the Village, the defendant Village of Hastings-on-Hudson appeals from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered February 1, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the com[459]*459plaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from stated portions of the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8); and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The complaint asserts a viable cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 80 (see, Wharram v City of Utica, 56 NY2d 733; Mathys v Town of E. Hampton, 114 AD2d 842; Village Auto Body Works v Town of Hempstead, 89 AD2d 612).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Code § 87-20 (A) (1) unconstitutional insofar as it requires holders of taxi cab licenses to maintain a central place of business within the corporate limits of the Village, the defendant Village of Hastings-on-Hudson appeals from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered February 1, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the com[459]*459plaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from stated portions of the same order.