Town of Hempstead v. Little

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Hempstead v. Little

20 A.D.2d 655, 246 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 655 (Town of Hempstead v. Little) 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

Town of Hempstead v. Little, 20 A.D.2d 655, 246 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by elaimants-respondents-appellants Little for reargument of appeal or, in the alternative, to amend this court’s decision and order of December 2, 1963 in certain respects. Motion for reargument denied. Motion to amend is granted to the extent of inserting in this court’s decision slip and order of December 2, 1963 the following additional paragraph: “Upon this appeal this court necessarily passed upon the claim that the Administrative Code of Nassau County, Sections 11-27.0, 11-33, 11-54, and 11-71, Chapter XI, Title B, under which the condemnation was conducted, and the procedure thereunder were invalid on the ground that such statute and such procedure denied due process of law to the respondents and cross-appellants Little; deprived them of the equal protection of the laws; and infringed upon and violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.” Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by elaimants-respondents-appellants Little for reargument of appeal or, in the alternative, to amend this court’s decision and order of December 2, 1963 in certain respects. Motion for reargument denied. Motion to amend is granted to the extent of inserting in this court’s decision slip and order of December 2, 1963 the following additional paragraph: “Upon this appeal this court necessarily passed upon the claim that the Administrative Code of Nassau County, Sections 11-27.0, 11-33, 11-54, and 11-71, Chapter XI, Title B, under which the condemnation was conducted, and the procedure thereunder were invalid on the ground that such statute and such procedure denied due process of law to the respondents and cross-appellants Little; deprived them of the equal protection of the laws; and infringed upon and violated their rights under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York.” Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 655, 246 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-hempstead-v-little-nyappdiv-1964.