Miller v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Murdock

1 A.D.2d 874, 150 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6009

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 874 (Miller v. Murdock) 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

Miller v. Murdock, 1 A.D.2d 874, 150 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

[875]*875Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. In view of the claimed course of practical construction by the agency and the holding in Matter of Eckerman v. Murdock (276 App. Div. 927) and the reliance by the agency ■ and the adverse parties upon those rulings, we feel obligated to follow that construction. If this were a question presented to us de novo we would be inclined to find that the regulations did not authorize the variance granted here under subdivision (e) of section 7 of the regulations (N. Y. City Zoning Resolution), because of the specific provisions contained in subdivision (f) of the same section. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Cox, Frank and Bergan, JJ.

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

[875]*875Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. In view of the claimed course of practical construction by the agency and the holding in Matter of Eckerman v. Murdock (276 App. Div. 927) and the reliance by the agency ■ and the adverse parties upon those rulings, we feel obligated to follow that construction. If this were a question presented to us de novo we would be inclined to find that the regulations did not authorize the variance granted here under subdivision (e) of section 7 of the regulations (N. Y. City Zoning Resolution), because of the specific provisions contained in subdivision (f) of the same section. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Cox, Frank and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 874, 150 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1956.