Merson v. McNally

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merson v. McNally

247 A.D.2d 541, 668 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1435

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 541 (Merson v. McNally) 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

Merson v. McNally, 247 A.D.2d 541, 668 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Philipstown, dated May 20, 1993, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hillery, J.), dated September 22, 1994, which dismissedjthe proceeding. By decision and order dated May 13, 1996, this Court reversed the judgment and granted the petition (see, Matter of Merson v Mc-Nally, 227 AD2d 487). By opinion dated October 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for determination of those issues raised but not decided on the appeal to this Court (see, Matter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs (see, Mat[542]*542ter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742, supra; Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn, v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 396-397).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Philipstown, dated May 20, 1993, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hillery, J.), dated September 22, 1994, which dismissedjthe proceeding. By decision and order dated May 13, 1996, this Court reversed the judgment and granted the petition (see, Matter of Merson v Mc-Nally, 227 AD2d 487). By opinion dated October 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for determination of those issues raised but not decided on the appeal to this Court (see, Matter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs (see, Mat[542]*542ter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742, supra; Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn, v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 396-397).

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 541, 668 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merson-v-mcnally-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack