Mobil Oil Corp. v. Town of North Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Town of North Hempstead

59 A.D.2d 551, 397 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13342

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

DecidedAugust 8, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 551 (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Town of North Hempstead) 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

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Town of North Hempstead, 59 A.D.2d 551, 397 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to, inter alia, declare a local law, which prohibits self-service gasoline service stations, to be invalid on its face, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 8, 1976, which, upon defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (1) declared the local law valid and constitutional and (2) enjoined the enforcement of that law as against the plaintiffs existing self-service gasoline service station. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Special Term committed error in treating the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment. It did not "provide adequate notice to the parties, and thus give them an opportunity to make an appropriate record” (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635). Moreover, the information submitted to the court on the motion supplied it with insufficient factual data upon-which to make a summary determination. Accordingly, a trial is mandated as to the validity of the ordinance in question as applied to plaintiff. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to, inter alia, declare a local law, which prohibits self-service gasoline service stations, to be invalid on its face, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 8, 1976, which, upon defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (1) declared the local law valid and constitutional and (2) enjoined the enforcement of that law as against the plaintiffs existing self-service gasoline service station. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Special Term committed error in treating the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as one for summary judgment. It did not "provide adequate notice to the parties, and thus give them an opportunity to make an appropriate record” (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635). Moreover, the information submitted to the court on the motion supplied it with insufficient factual data upon-which to make a summary determination. Accordingly, a trial is mandated as to the validity of the ordinance in question as applied to plaintiff. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 551, 397 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobil-oil-corp-v-town-of-north-hempstead-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack