Town of Southold v. Catus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Southold v. Catus

254 A.D.2d 363, 678 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 363 (Town of Southold v. Catus) 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 Southold v. Catus, 254 A.D.2d 363, 678 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the appellants to provide certain documents relating to the revenues of the Greenport Water Department, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated October 17, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the petition and awarded the petitioner counsel fees and costs.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ contention that the petitioner lacked standing or capacity to institute this proceeding is being raised for the first time on appeal and therefore we decline to reach this issue (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the petitioner counsel fees and costs (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [4] [c]; Matter of Moore v Catus, 254 AD2d 360 [decided herewith]). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the appellants to provide certain documents relating to the revenues of the Greenport Water Department, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated October 17, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the petition and awarded the petitioner counsel fees and costs.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants’ contention that the petitioner lacked standing or capacity to institute this proceeding is being raised for the first time on appeal and therefore we decline to reach this issue (see, Murray v Palmer, 229 AD2d 377).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the petitioner counsel fees and costs (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [4] [c]; Matter of Moore v Catus, 254 AD2d 360 [decided herewith]). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 363, 678 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-southold-v-catus-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack