Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency

46 A.D.2d 811, 361 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 811 (Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency) 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

Paige v. White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, 46 A.D.2d 811, 361 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment and other relief, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 3, 1974, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof a provision which (a) declares that plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the property in suit and (b) limits the dismissal to the balance of the complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant. In an action in which declaratory relief is proper, a court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief it seeks, but should declare the rights of the parties and give judgment to the defendant (Levy v. Westchester County, 29 A D 2d 664; Skyway Container Gory. v. Castagna, 27 A D [812]*8122d 542; Roclclcmd Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 ,N. Y. 45, 51). The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation in the present action of issues previously determined. Shapiro, Acting P. J.¡ Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment and other relief, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 3, 1974, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order modified, on the law, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof a provision which (a) declares that plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the property in suit and (b) limits the dismissal to the balance of the complaint. As so modified, order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant. In an action in which declaratory relief is proper, a court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief it seeks, but should declare the rights of the parties and give judgment to the defendant (Levy v. Westchester County, 29 A D 2d 664; Skyway Container Gory. v. Castagna, 27 A D [812]*8122d 542; Roclclcmd Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 ,N. Y. 45, 51). The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation in the present action of issues previously determined. Shapiro, Acting P. J.¡ Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 811, 361 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paige-v-white-plains-urban-renewal-agency-nyappdiv-1974.