Town of Scarsdale v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Scarsdale v. County of Westchester

192 A.D.2d 517, 595 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453

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

DecidedApril 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 517 (Town of Scarsdale v. County of Westchester) 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 Scarsdale v. County of Westchester, 192 A.D.2d 517, 595 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court correctly ruled that the Town of Scarsdale lacks standing to challenge the County’s reapportionment plan on the ground that it divided Town of Scarsdale between two voting districts (see, Mirrione v Anderson, 717 F2d 743, cert denied 465 US 1036; see also, Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761). However, the intervenors could properly bring this action in their capacity as individuals. In any event, due to the fact that the local law in question has been found to be unconstitutional for reasons stated in a companion case to this appeal, we need not reach the parties’ present contentions (see, Chonigman v County of Westchester, 192 AD2d 499 [decided herewith]). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

The trial court correctly ruled that the Town of Scarsdale lacks standing to challenge the County’s reapportionment plan on the ground that it divided Town of Scarsdale between two voting districts (see, Mirrione v Anderson, 717 F2d 743, cert denied 465 US 1036; see also, Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761). However, the intervenors could properly bring this action in their capacity as individuals. In any event, due to the fact that the local law in question has been found to be unconstitutional for reasons stated in a companion case to this appeal, we need not reach the parties’ present contentions (see, Chonigman v County of Westchester, 192 AD2d 499 [decided herewith]). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 517, 595 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-scarsdale-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack