Rogers v. North American Philips Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogers v. North American Philips Co.

19 A.D.2d 838, 245 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 838 (Rogers v. North American Philips Co.) 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

Rogers v. North American Philips Co., 19 A.D.2d 838, 245 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare unconstitutional, illegal and void -certain amendments to the zoning ordinance of the defendant village, pursuant to which the village, by the “ two-step ” or “floating zone” method, rezoned the subject property and placed it in a special classification known as “Planned Office Building and Research Laboratory B,” and for incidental injunctive relief, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 16, 1963 upon the Special Term’s opinion and decision after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint on the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the Justice at Special Term (Bogers V. North American Philips Co., 37 Mise 2d 923). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to declare unconstitutional, illegal and void -certain amendments to the zoning ordinance of the defendant village, pursuant to which the village, by the “ two-step ” or “floating zone” method, rezoned the subject property and placed it in a special classification known as “Planned Office Building and Research Laboratory B,” and for incidental injunctive relief, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 16, 1963 upon the Special Term’s opinion and decision after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint on the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the Justice at Special Term (Bogers V. North American Philips Co., 37 Mise 2d 923). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 838, 245 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-north-american-philips-co-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack