State v. South Haven Houses Housing Development Fund Co.

387 N.E.2d 1211, 46 N.Y.2d 899, 414 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1845
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 15, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 387 N.E.2d 1211 (State v. South Haven Houses Housing Development Fund Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. South Haven Houses Housing Development Fund Co., 387 N.E.2d 1211, 46 N.Y.2d 899, 414 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1845 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinions

[901]*901OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Inasmuch as the petitioner Attorney-General alleged that the respondent National Bank of North America violated the provisions of article 7 (tit 1) of the General Obligations Law, the petitioner had legal standing to institute this proceeding against the respondent bank and, therefore, the petition should not have been dismissed on the ground that petitioner lacked standing. (See General Obligations Law, § 7-107.) An examination of the record before us, however, reveals petitioner failed to set forth any evidentiary facts to substantiate his claim that respondent acted in a fraudulent and illegal manner in violation of the General Obligations Law. Consequently, the petition was properly dismissed inasmuch as summary judgment should have been granted for respondent bank. (See Matter of Knickerbocker Field Club v Site Selection Bd. of City of N. Y., 41 AD2d 539, 540; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3212:23, p 443.)

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs to respondent. Respondent’s cross appeal from so much of the order of the Appellate Division as dismissed respondent’s appeal from an order of Special Term denying reargument should be dismissed, without costs to petitioner, as the denial of reargument involves a question of discretion of the type not reviewable by this court. (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 147, pp 584-585.)

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

Related

People v. Trump
2025 NY Slip Op 04756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
State v. Wolowitz
96 A.D.2d 47 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Stiliho v. Fine
79 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 N.E.2d 1211, 46 N.Y.2d 899, 414 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-south-haven-houses-housing-development-fund-co-ny-1979.