Matter of Harris Motors v. Klapp

72 N.E.2d 305, 296 N.Y. 242, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 943
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 28, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 72 N.E.2d 305 (Matter of Harris Motors v. Klapp) 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 Harris Motors v. Klapp, 72 N.E.2d 305, 296 N.Y. 242, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 943 (N.Y. 1947).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioners have pleaded not guilty to a complaint filed in the War Emergency Court of the Magistrates’ Courts of the City of New York charging them with having violated section U41-4.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York in that on August 5, 1946, they offered for sale, sold and delivered a motor vehicle at a price in excess *244 of the ceiling price of such car as fixed by the Office of Price Administration. In this proceeding to obtain an order in the nature of prohibition against the War Emergency Court, petitioners urge that Local Law No. 34 of the Laws of 1945, which enacted the section of the Administrative Code of the City of New York which they are charged with having violated, had expired on June 30, 1946, and was not in effect on .the day the offense was alleged to' have been committed. This question turned upon a construction of the local law. In our view, the Magistrate was not without jurisdiction to determine that question and to dismiss the proceeding or proceed with the trial accordingly. The .aggrieved party by the ordinary process of appeal may secure adequate relief from error, if such error should develop (cf. People ex rel. Hummel v. Trial Term, 184 N. Y. 30; People ex rel. Ballin v. Smith, 184 N. Y. 96). Solely on the ground that an order in the nature of prohibition is not available to petitioners, the determination of the courts below denying the application is affirmed.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thaoher, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Celli
48 A.D.2d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Village of Camillus v. Diamond
76 Misc. 2d 319 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Ricapito v. People
20 A.D.2d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Sussman v. Bloch
28 Misc. 2d 891 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Sabatino v. Sabatino
12 A.D.2d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Lacitra v. Foley
20 Misc. 2d 922 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 N.E.2d 305, 296 N.Y. 242, 1947 N.Y. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-harris-motors-v-klapp-ny-1947.