Kohnberg v. Murdock
| Decision Date | 01 July 1957 |
| Citation | 4 A.D.2d 750,164 N.Y.S.2d 870 |
| Parties | Matter of the Application of Philip KOHNBERG et al., Appellants, v. Harris H. MURDOCK et al., constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals, Respondents, and Morton Pickman, Samuel M. Berley, Intervenors-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert S. Dillworth, Hollis, for appellants.
Alfred Weinstein, New York City, Seymour B. Quel, New York City, on the brief, for respondent Board of Standards and Appeals.
Jacob I. Isaacs, New York City, for respondent Pickman.
Before WENZEL, Acting P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal from an order granting a motion to vacate an order of certiorari dated September 17, 1956 and to dismiss the petition on which said order was granted.
On July 31, 1956, the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York granted the application of the owners of certain real property for a variance. On August 13, 1956, the resolution of the board was published in the board's bulletin. On September 10, 1956, appellants, various property owners, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the board, served a notice of motion under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the determination of the board, together with a petition sufficient in form under both article 78 of the Civil Practice Act and section 668e-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York for certiorari. On September 17, 1956, appellants, on the same petition, obtained an order of certiorari. On that day (September 17, 1956) a stipulation was signed by and between the attorneys for the board and appellants withdrawing the notice of motion and petition served September 10, 1956 and substituting nunc pro tunc the certiorari order for the notice of motion. On November 28, 1956, the owners of the property for which the variance had been granted, were permitted to intervene. By notice of motion, returnable December 20, 1956, the board and the intervenors moved to vacate the order of certiorari of September 17, 1956 and to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was not presented within 30 days after August 13, 1956, as required by section 668e-1.0 of the Administrative Code. The motion was granted by order dated January 8, 1957, the order appealed from.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with leave to respondents, if they be so advised, to serve and file a return within 10 days after the entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberson v. Board of Ed. of City of Santa Fe
...both. Even where applications or petitions are required by statute, which also provides for liberal interpretation, Kohnberg v. Murdock, 4 A.D.2d 750, 164 N.Y.S.2d 870 (1957), certain minimum requirements must be met. Fitzgerald v. Conway, 191 Misc. 1048, 78 N.Y.S.2d 418 (1962); Kantor v. C......
-
Williams v. State
...or defects in form should be disregarded. (Barski v. State of New York, 43 A.D.2d 767, 350 N.Y.S.2d 762; Kohnberg v. Murdock, 4 A.D.2d 750, 164 N.Y.S.2d 870; Mahopac Heights, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Carmel, 278 App.Div. 779, 103 N.Y.S.2d 950; Harvey Chalmers & Son v. Stat......
-
North Am. Holding Corp. v. Murdock
...254 App.Div. 777, 4 N.Y.S.2d 760; Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 270 App.Div. 824, 60 N.Y.S.2d 98; Kohnberg v. Murdock (Board of Standards and Appeals), 4 A.D.2d 750, 164 N.Y.S.2d 870). Properly read, the comments in one of the leading texts in the field are not contradictory (McGoldrick,......
-
Larabe Realty Co. v. Silva
...342 N.Y.S.2d 121; Matter of Satin v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 12 A.D.2d 526, 208 N.Y.S.2d 518; Matter of Kohnberg v. Murdock, 4 A.D.2d 750, 164 N.Y.S.2d 870). ROSENBLATT, J.P., and THOMPSON, SANTUCCI and ALTMAN, JJ., ...