Subway Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. Considine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Subway Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. Considine

158 A.D.2d 406, 551 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1848

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 406 (Subway Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. Considine) 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

Subway Check Cashing Service, Inc. v. Considine, 158 A.D.2d 406, 551 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

IAS did not err in holding that petitioner, a licensed check casher, lacked standing under Banking Law § 369 to challenge the issuance of a check-cashing license to a competitor at nearby location, since a competitive injury, in and of itself, does not confer standing to challenge an administrative determination (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Matter of Nostrand Check Cashing Co. v Clark, 27 Misc 2d 799, affd 13 AD2d 922). In any event, the record contains a [407]*407rational basis for respondents’ finding that the proposed new check-cashing facility would "promote the convenience and advantage of the area” (Banking Law § 369 [1]). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

IAS did not err in holding that petitioner, a licensed check casher, lacked standing under Banking Law § 369 to challenge the issuance of a check-cashing license to a competitor at nearby location, since a competitive injury, in and of itself, does not confer standing to challenge an administrative determination (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Matter of Nostrand Check Cashing Co. v Clark, 27 Misc 2d 799, affd 13 AD2d 922). In any event, the record contains a [407]*407rational basis for respondents’ finding that the proposed new check-cashing facility would "promote the convenience and advantage of the area” (Banking Law § 369 [1]). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 406, 551 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/subway-check-cashing-service-inc-v-considine-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack