Munderville v. Nichols

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munderville v. Nichols

7 A.D.2d 923, 183 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9965

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 923 (Munderville v. Nichols) 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

Munderville v. Nichols, 7 A.D.2d 923, 183 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding to annul a special meeting and the action taken thereat and as a result thereof, and for [924]*924other relief. At an annual meeting the voters of a common school district adopted a school budget for the ensuing year. Thereafter, and presumably under subdivision 2 of section 2008 of the Education Law, respondents noticed and held a special meeting at which a majority of the voters adopted a budget in an increased amount over that in the budget previously adopted. At Special Term respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction was granted under sections 2037 and 310 of .the Education Law. The dismissal was without prejudice to whatever other rights appellants may deem appropriate. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. If it be assumed that the Special Term had jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, the petition nevertheless fails to state facts sufficient to warrant the granting of any relief. Present—Nolan, p. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Proceeding to annul a special meeting and the action taken thereat and as a result thereof, and for [924]*924other relief. At an annual meeting the voters of a common school district adopted a school budget for the ensuing year. Thereafter, and presumably under subdivision 2 of section 2008 of the Education Law, respondents noticed and held a special meeting at which a majority of the voters adopted a budget in an increased amount over that in the budget previously adopted. At Special Term respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction was granted under sections 2037 and 310 of .the Education Law. The dismissal was without prejudice to whatever other rights appellants may deem appropriate. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. If it be assumed that the Special Term had jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, the petition nevertheless fails to state facts sufficient to warrant the granting of any relief. Present—Nolan, p. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 923, 183 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munderville-v-nichols-nyappdiv-1959.