Matter of Allen

98 N.E. 470, 205 N.Y. 158, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1201
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 2, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 98 N.E. 470 (Matter of Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Allen, 98 N.E. 470, 205 N.Y. 158, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1201 (N.Y. 1912).

Opinion

Willard Bartlett, J.

This case differs essentially from Matter of Egan (decided herewith), in which we have held that a taxpayer is entitled under section 51 of the General Municipal Law to an inspection of the public *160 documents upon which the commissioners of water supply of the city of ¡New York acted in awarding a contract for the construction of a tunnel under the Hudson river at Storm King. In the opinion in that case it was pointed out that the far-reaching right of inspection conferred upon taxpayers by section 51 of the General Municipal Law might be limited by special statutes relative to public" documents in particular departments, such as the board of health in New York. Section 1115 of the Greater New York charter is such a special statute. It provides that the board of health may establish as it shall deem wise and to promote the public good and public service, reasonable- regulations “as to the publicity of any of the papers, files, reports, records and proceedings of the department of health.” This empowers the hoard to determine whether any particular document falling within the prescribed category shall or shall not he made public. Pursuant to the authority thus conferred upon it the board has established certain regulations as to the inspection of its records which in our judgment do not exceed its discretionary power under the section cited. The petitioner failed to comply with these rules, and the Appellate Division was, therefore, right in holding that he was not entitled to have his application granted. For these reasons the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Werfel v. Fitzgerald
23 A.D.2d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Rome Sentinel Co. v. Boustedt
43 Misc. 2d 598 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Hoyt
202 Misc. 43 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
Goldsmith v. Hubbard
183 Misc. 889 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Blandford v. McClellan
173 Misc. 15 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
In re the Estate of Montgomery
166 Misc. 347 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1938)
McGowan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
141 Misc. 834 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)
People ex rel. Higgins v. Emerson
102 Misc. 183 (New York Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 N.E. 470, 205 N.Y. 158, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-allen-ny-1912.