Rapaport v. Village of Port Chester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rapaport v. Village of Port Chester

27 A.D.2d 850, 278 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 850 (Rapaport v. Village of Port Chester) 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

Rapaport v. Village of Port Chester, 27 A.D.2d 850, 278 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 3, 1966, modified, on the law, by striking out the first and third decretal paragraphs thereof and by adding a provision remitting the matter to the appellant Village Board of Trustees for a full hearing and the making of specific findings in support of any decision the board may thereupon make. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, petitioners were entitled to notice and hearing if the Board of Trustees intended not to renew the dancing and entertainment license granted to them each year since 1961 (Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 N. Y. 461, 468). In addition, petitioners were entitled to have specific findings made as to the reasons for the denial of the renewal license, not only by reason of the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance to Regulate Dancing, etc., but also to permit the court to evaluate such reasons in light of the proof adduced. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 3, 1966, modified, on the law, by striking out the first and third decretal paragraphs thereof and by adding a provision remitting the matter to the appellant Village Board of Trustees for a full hearing and the making of specific findings in support of any decision the board may thereupon make. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, petitioners were entitled to notice and hearing if the Board of Trustees intended not to renew the dancing and entertainment license granted to them each year since 1961 (Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 N. Y. 461, 468). In addition, petitioners were entitled to have specific findings made as to the reasons for the denial of the renewal license, not only by reason of the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance to Regulate Dancing, etc., but also to permit the court to evaluate such reasons in light of the proof adduced. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 850, 278 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapaport-v-village-of-port-chester-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack