Town Board of Huntington v. Plonski

New York Court of Appeals

Town Board of Huntington v. Plonski

10 N.Y.2d 1035

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 11, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 N.Y.2d 1035 (Town Board of Huntington v. Plonski) 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

Town Board of Huntington v. Plonski, 10 N.Y.2d 1035 (N.Y. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster. Judge Froessel dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent. Following the argument of the appeal in this court on November 16,1961 — at which time the 1960 amendment to the zoning ordinance was challenged [1038]*1038for lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard — there were submitted to us excerpts taken from the Town Board minutes of the November 28, 1961 hearing on the re-enactment of the 1960 amendment. Those excerpts show the following: “Resolution No. 30 — Re-enactment of Building Zone Ordinances. Kelly (a member of the Town Board) stated that he voted yes for this proposal on the strength of the statement made by the Town Attorney and the Supervisor that this would not retroactively affect existing parking lots and would only apply to new applications.” In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that there should be a reargument here.

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

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster. Judge Froessel dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent. Following the argument of the appeal in this court on November 16,1961 — at which time the 1960 amendment to the zoning ordinance was challenged [1038]*1038for lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard — there were submitted to us excerpts taken from the Town Board minutes of the November 28, 1961 hearing on the re-enactment of the 1960 amendment. Those excerpts show the following: “Resolution No. 30 — Re-enactment of Building Zone Ordinances. Kelly (a member of the Town Board) stated that he voted yes for this proposal on the strength of the statement made by the Town Attorney and the Supervisor that this would not retroactively affect existing parking lots and would only apply to new applications.” In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that there should be a reargument here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.2d 1035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-board-of-huntington-v-plonski-ny-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack