Mont Gardens, Inc. v. Suffolk County Department of Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mont Gardens, Inc. v. Suffolk County Department of Health

24 A.D.2d 599, 262 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 599 (Mont Gardens, Inc. v. Suffolk County Department of Health) 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

Mont Gardens, Inc. v. Suffolk County Department of Health, 24 A.D.2d 599, 262 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, to require the Suffolk County Department of Health and its Commissioner of Health to approve the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to the petitioner, the said department and its Commissioner appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 14, 1964, which granted the petition in all respects. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Ho questions of fact were considered. The Special Term Justice predicated his decision upon a prior holding by another Special Term in another case (Co-Pilot Enterprises v. Suffolk County Dept. of Health, 38 Misc 2d 894). Petitioner, on this appeal, urges that such prior holding must be followed by virtue of the rule enunciated in Israel v. Wood Dolson Co. (1 N Y 2d 116). In our opinion, the rule of Israel does not apply to the case at bar. That rule was never intended to bind conclusively the appellate courts or courts [600]*600of co-ordinate jurisdiction, on the theory of res judicata or collateral estoppel, merely because: (a) in a prior unrelated action a lower court or a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction had adjudged a health department regulation unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional; and (b) none of the parties had elected to take an appeal from such an adjudication. Particularly is that so where, as here, the issue decided in such prior action involved disputable questions of scientific opinion, not questions of historical fact. Hence, this case may not be decided on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel. It must be decided on a de novo consideration of the merits, after a plenary hearing. Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, to require the Suffolk County Department of Health and its Commissioner of Health to approve the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to the petitioner, the said department and its Commissioner appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 14, 1964, which granted the petition in all respects. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Ho questions of fact were considered. The Special Term Justice predicated his decision upon a prior holding by another Special Term in another case (Co-Pilot Enterprises v. Suffolk County Dept. of Health, 38 Misc 2d 894). Petitioner, on this appeal, urges that such prior holding must be followed by virtue of the rule enunciated in Israel v. Wood Dolson Co. (1 N Y 2d 116). In our opinion, the rule of Israel does not apply to the case at bar. That rule was never intended to bind conclusively the appellate courts or courts [600]*600of co-ordinate jurisdiction, on the theory of res judicata or collateral estoppel, merely because: (a) in a prior unrelated action a lower court or a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction had adjudged a health department regulation unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional; and (b) none of the parties had elected to take an appeal from such an adjudication. Particularly is that so where, as here, the issue decided in such prior action involved disputable questions of scientific opinion, not questions of historical fact. Hence, this case may not be decided on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel. It must be decided on a de novo consideration of the merits, after a plenary hearing. Beldock, P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 599, 262 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mont-gardens-inc-v-suffolk-county-department-of-health-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack