Mount St. Mary's Hospital v. Catherwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mount St. Mary's Hospital v. Catherwood

33 A.D.2d 635, 305 N.Y.S.2d 143, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2127, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3047

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 635 (Mount St. Mary's Hospital v. Catherwood) 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

Mount St. Mary's Hospital v. Catherwood, 33 A.D.2d 635, 305 N.Y.S.2d 143, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2127, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order .unanimously- affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We agree with the conclusion reached by Special Term that section 716 of the Labor-Law is'valid and constitutional. One of appellant’s major contentions'is that the section fails to establish basic-standards sufficiently detailed to guide the Industrial Commissioner in the enforcement of the statute. Whatever doubt may - have existed on this subject has been removed by the recent (L. 1969, eh. 526) amendment to section 716 which became effective July 1, 1969. This chapter (§ 3) added three new subdivisions (7, .8 and 9) to section 716. Subdivision 7 sets forth seven standards that the arbitrators may consider in arriving at a decision in a dispute referred to them. Comparison of these standards with those stated in the order of the respondent Commissioner herein reveals that they are substantially identical. This amendment, if here applicable, destroys the contention of appellant that the Commissioner lacked power or authority to establish standards but such must be found in the statute. Controlling here is the legal principle that “ An appellate court passes [636]*636upon a determination appealed from in accordance with the applicable law as it is at the time of appeal, and not in accordance with the law as it was at the time of the original determination”. (10 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 70:279; see, also, Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 307 N. Y. 475, 486.) It follows that in this declaratory judgment action we should not ignore a pertinent recent statutory enactment presently in full force and one that is a complete answer to one of appellant’s principal grounds for urging that the statute is unconstitutional. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting motion for summary judgment in action for declaratory judgment.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Gabrielli, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

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

Order .unanimously- affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We agree with the conclusion reached by Special Term that section 716 of the Labor-Law is'valid and constitutional. One of appellant’s major contentions'is that the section fails to establish basic-standards sufficiently detailed to guide the Industrial Commissioner in the enforcement of the statute. Whatever doubt may - have existed on this subject has been removed by the recent (L. 1969, eh. 526) amendment to section 716 which became effective July 1, 1969. This chapter (§ 3) added three new subdivisions (7, .8 and 9) to section 716. Subdivision 7 sets forth seven standards that the arbitrators may consider in arriving at a decision in a dispute referred to them. Comparison of these standards with those stated in the order of the respondent Commissioner herein reveals that they are substantially identical. This amendment, if here applicable, destroys the contention of appellant that the Commissioner lacked power or authority to establish standards but such must be found in the statute. Controlling here is the legal principle that “ An appellate court passes [636]*636upon a determination appealed from in accordance with the applicable law as it is at the time of appeal, and not in accordance with the law as it was at the time of the original determination”. (10 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 70:279; see, also, Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 307 N. Y. 475, 486.) It follows that in this declaratory judgment action we should not ignore a pertinent recent statutory enactment presently in full force and one that is a complete answer to one of appellant’s principal grounds for urging that the statute is unconstitutional. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting motion for summary judgment in action for declaratory judgment.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Gabrielli, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 635, 305 N.Y.S.2d 143, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2127, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-st-marys-hospital-v-catherwood-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack