Shea v. City of Cohoes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shea v. City of Cohoes

27 A.D.2d 881, 278 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 881 (Shea v. City of Cohoes) 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

Shea v. City of Cohoes, 27 A.D.2d 881, 278 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a preliminary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff taxpayer. Order affirmed. We do not reach the merits. We leave to a plenary trial the determination of the important ultimate question in the case. (Elishewitz & Sons v. Barry Equity Corp., 280 App. Div. 336, 338, mot. for lv. to app. den. 280 App. Div. 915; Metzger Co. v. Fay, 4 A D 2d 436, 439, mot. for rearg. or lv. to app. den. 4 A D 2d 861.) However, the terms of the injunction are not to apply to any act of the council for or against the express approval of the agreement arising out of the resolution of January 21, 1965. Either party may apply to the administrative Judge for the purpose of setting a date for trial. In the event a prompt trial is not held as the result of any delay or hindrance on the part of the plaintiffs, the city may move to vacate the preliminary injunction. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a preliminary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff taxpayer. Order affirmed. We do not reach the merits. We leave to a plenary trial the determination of the important ultimate question in the case. (Elishewitz & Sons v. Barry Equity Corp., 280 App. Div. 336, 338, mot. for lv. to app. den. 280 App. Div. 915; Metzger Co. v. Fay, 4 A D 2d 436, 439, mot. for rearg. or lv. to app. den. 4 A D 2d 861.) However, the terms of the injunction are not to apply to any act of the council for or against the express approval of the agreement arising out of the resolution of January 21, 1965. Either party may apply to the administrative Judge for the purpose of setting a date for trial. In the event a prompt trial is not held as the result of any delay or hindrance on the part of the plaintiffs, the city may move to vacate the preliminary injunction. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 881, 278 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shea-v-city-of-cohoes-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack