People ex rel. Rota v. Baker

136 A.D. 7, 120 N.Y.S. 161, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 30, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 136 A.D. 7 (People ex rel. Rota v. Baker) 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
People ex rel. Rota v. Baker, 136 A.D. 7, 120 N.Y.S. 161, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Rich, J.:

The relator made application to the respondent for a concert hall license, which was refused, and now he seeks to compel its issuance by this proceeding. The power to issue such licenses, now vested [8]*8in the police commissioner, was formerly vested, in and exercised by the mayor. (Laws of 1901, chap. 466, “ Section Three;" Laws of 1897, chap. 378, §§ 1472-1474, as amd. by Laws of 1901, chap. 412; Laws of 1882, chap. 410, §§ 1998-2000, as amd. by Laws of 1885, chap. 249.) Such power is discretionary and not controlled by mandamus. (People ex rel. Worth v. Grant, 58 Hun, 455; Matter of Armstrong v. Murphy, No. 1, 65 App. Div. 123; People ex rel. Park Circle Amusement Co. v. Police Board, 36 Misc. Rep. 89 ; People ex rel. Mayor, etc., v. McCarthy, 102 N. Y. 643; People ex rel. Schwab v. Grant, 126 id. 473; People ex rel. Wm. Fox Amusement Co. v. McClellan, decided at Special Term by Mr. Justice Thomas, March, 1909.) This rule is varied only when the action of the board or person vested with the power of issuing a license is arbitrary, tyrannical or unreasonable, oris based upon false information.

The record before us discloses a wise and commendable exercise of the discretion vested in the respondent, and the order must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, Bure, Thomas and Miller, JJ.; concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Related

Moore v. Gallup
267 A.D. 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)
Marburg v. Cole
175 Misc. 308 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Rudhlan Amusement Corp. v. Geraghty
146 Misc. 308 (New York Supreme Court, 1932)
Message Photo-Play Co. v. Bell
179 A.D. 13 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Ormsby v. Bell
171 A.D. 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Edelstein v. Bell
91 Misc. 620 (New York Supreme Court, 1915)
People ex rel. Ritter v. Wallace
160 A.D. 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
People ex rel. Bonfiglio v. Baker
67 Misc. 539 (New York Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D. 7, 120 N.Y.S. 161, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rota-v-baker-nyappdiv-1909.