People Ex Rel. Smith v. Walsh
This text of 148 N.E. 724 (People Ex Rel. Smith v. Walsh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We agree with the construction of the Building Zone Resolution by the Appellate Division. (211 App. Div. 205.) The determination of the board of appeals was, however, based on an erroneous theory. It did not hear and determine the question under section 20 of the resolution. Proper practice would require that the matter be returned to the board to decide the application of the property owners on the correct theory rather than the Appellate Division should pass on the merits of the application. (People ex rel. Dawley v. Wilson, 200 App. Div. 537; affd., 235 N. Y. 587.)
As it seems clear that the board would exercise its power to vary the provisions of the resolution to the extent of granting the permit now before us under section 20, no substantial right of any party will be affected by an affirmance of the order appealed from.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Lehman, JJ., concur; Andrews, J., absent.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
148 N.E. 724, 240 N.Y. 606, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-smith-v-walsh-ny-1925.