Froslid v. Hults

Decision Date30 April 1964
Citation14 N.Y.2d 722,250 N.Y.S.2d 68
Parties, 199 N.E.2d 166 In the Matter of E. Kenneth FROSLID, Appellant, v. William S. HULTS, Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 20 A.D.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676.

Proceeding was brought under the Civil Practice Act, § 1283 et seq., to direct the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York to issue an order authorizing all motor vehicle owners to delete from the 1964 license plates the legend 'World's Fair,' and to direct him to cease and desist from authorizing or ordering license plates for 1965 with that legend, or, in the alternative, to direct him to collect from the corporation, New York World's Fair 1964-1965, Inc., a sum of money for the advertising value of the legend on the license plates during such period.

The Supreme Court, Apecial Term, Queens County, Harold Tessler, J., 41 Misc.2d 570, 246 N.Y.S.2d 899, granted the petition to the extent of directing the commissioner to issue to the petitioner and all other persons, on application therefor and payment of the proper fee, registration plates for 1964 without the legend, and denying the petition in all other respects, and appeals were taken.

The Appellate Division, Beldock, P. J., 20 A.D.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676, modified the order on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion by striking out the provisions granting the petition with respect to 1964 automobile license plates and directing the Commissioner to issue such plates without inscription of the legend or from which the inscription should have been deleted, and by substituting therefor a provision denying the petition with respect to the 1964 license plates, and affirmed the order as so modified, and held that the Commissioner had authority to direct that the legend be placed on the license plates.

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal, and cross motion was made to set the case down for argument during present session of the Court of Appeals.

Motion granted and the appeal dismissed upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Cross motion denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Hoskin
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 29 d5 Setembro d5 1972
    ...421, 51 L.Ed. 696, 701 (1907); Froslid v. Hults, 20 App.Div.2d 498, 503, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676, 681, appeal dismissed, 14 N.Y.2d 722, 250 N.Y.S.2d 68, 199 N.E.2d 166 (1964). We find no violation of due process of law. Coleman v. School District, 87 N.H. 465, 472, 183 A. 586, 589 (1939); Sproles ......
  • People v. Baez
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 11 d6 Janeiro d6 1986
    ...immediate identification. See Froslid v. Hults, 20 A.D.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676 (3rd Dept.1964), appeal dism., 14 N.Y.2d 722, 250 N.Y.S.2d 68, 199 N.E.2d 166 (1964). The court is mindful that the Court of Appeals in Ingle, (36 N.Y.2d 413, 420, 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 330 N.E.2d 39, supra), stated ......
  • Trans-Lux Distributing Corp. v. Board of Regents of University of State of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 d4 Abril d4 1964

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT