New York Sporting Arms Ass'n v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Sporting Arms Ass'n v. City of New York

31 A.D.2d 793, 297 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4665

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 793 (New York Sporting Arms Ass'n v. City of New York) 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

New York Sporting Arms Ass'n v. City of New York, 31 A.D.2d 793, 297 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered April 23, 1968, unanimously modified on the law to the extent of striking therefrom the last decretal paragraph dismissing the complaint as to plaintiffs T. Stanley Bloch and Jack Appel and substituting therefor a provision declaring that Local Law No. 106 of the Local Laws of 1967 of the City of New York amending chapter 18 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in its general provisions and intendment, is constitutional and valid and that the said plaintiffs are in no way unconstitutionally aggrieved by any specific provisions of said law; and as so modified, affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents. Special Term correctly 'determined that the attack by the said plaintiffs upon the 'Constitutionality and validity of Local Law No. 106 had no merit, and correctly sustained the validity of that law. However, Special Term erroneously dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs were not entitled .to the declaration sought by them. (Lanza V. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334; Park Ave. Clinical Hosp. v. Kramer, 26 A D 2d 613, affd. 19 N Y 2d 958; Medical World Pub. Co., v. Kaufman, 29 A D 2d 859). A declaration should have been granted in defendants’ favor as indicated hereinabove. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment entered April 23, 1968, unanimously modified on the law to the extent of striking therefrom the last decretal paragraph dismissing the complaint as to plaintiffs T. Stanley Bloch and Jack Appel and substituting therefor a provision declaring that Local Law No. 106 of the Local Laws of 1967 of the City of New York amending chapter 18 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in its general provisions and intendment, is constitutional and valid and that the said plaintiffs are in no way unconstitutionally aggrieved by any specific provisions of said law; and as so modified, affirmed with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents. Special Term correctly 'determined that the attack by the said plaintiffs upon the 'Constitutionality and validity of Local Law No. 106 had no merit, and correctly sustained the validity of that law. However, Special Term erroneously dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs were not entitled .to the declaration sought by them. (Lanza V. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334; Park Ave. Clinical Hosp. v. Kramer, 26 A D 2d 613, affd. 19 N Y 2d 958; Medical World Pub. Co., v. Kaufman, 29 A D 2d 859). A declaration should have been granted in defendants’ favor as indicated hereinabove. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 793, 297 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-sporting-arms-assn-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1969.