Standard X-Ray Co. v. Hubbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Standard X-Ray Co. v. Hubbell

245 A.D. 751

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

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 751 (Standard X-Ray Co. v. Hubbell) 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

Standard X-Ray Co. v. Hubbell, 245 A.D. 751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order denying a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the president and board of managers of the Meadowbrook Hospital and the board of supervisors of the county of Nassau to award a contract to the petitioner, the lowest bidder. Order unanimously affirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion. Without deciding the other questions raised, the court is of the opinion that section 238 of the County Law is not applicable to the purchase of X-ray equipment. (See General Municipal Law, § 129, and County Law, § 48, indicating that equipment is differentiated from supplies.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty] Carswell and Seudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from order denying a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the president and board of managers of the Meadowbrook Hospital and the board of supervisors of the county of Nassau to award a contract to the petitioner, the lowest bidder. Order unanimously affirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion. Without deciding the other questions raised, the court is of the opinion that section 238 of the County Law is not applicable to the purchase of X-ray equipment. (See General Municipal Law, § 129, and County Law, § 48, indicating that equipment is differentiated from supplies.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty] Carswell and Seudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-x-ray-co-v-hubbell-nyappdiv-1935.