Ralph v. Board of Estimate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ralph v. Board of Estimate

278 A.D. 793, 104 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4756

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

DecidedApril 30, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 793 (Ralph v. Board of Estimate) 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

Ralph v. Board of Estimate, 278 A.D. 793, 104 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

-In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, order denying appellants’ motion to compel respondent to accept service of a notice of appeal from an order which granted reargument but adhered to the original determination determining the proceeding in favor of the respondent, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The Special Term was without power to grant the motion. (Ziadi v. Interurban St. By. Go., 97 App. Div. 137.) Even if it had jurisdiction to determine the question, People ex rel. Manhattan Stor. é Warehouse Go. v. Lilly (299 N. Y. 281) would require denial of the motion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Mac Crate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 750; 279 App. Div. 758.]

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

-In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, order denying appellants’ motion to compel respondent to accept service of a notice of appeal from an order which granted reargument but adhered to the original determination determining the proceeding in favor of the respondent, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The Special Term was without power to grant the motion. (Ziadi v. Interurban St. By. Go., 97 App. Div. 137.) Even if it had jurisdiction to determine the question, People ex rel. Manhattan Stor. é Warehouse Go. v. Lilly (299 N. Y. 281) would require denial of the motion. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Mac Crate, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 750; 279 App. Div. 758.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 793, 104 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-v-board-of-estimate-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack