Legal Opinion
Brodsky v. Zagata
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 1995PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Joseph C. Teresi, J.
Petitioners bring this combined CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that would declare the emergency rule repealing 6 NYCRR 326.2 (b) (10) invalid, null and void.
Respondents oppose the petition alleging that the petitioners do not have standing to maintain the proceeding and that the petitioners have failed to state a cause of action.
Initially this court determines that the petitioners do have standing to maintain the action. Three of the petitioners maintain that they have standing as representatives of constituents who may…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Ass'n v. JorlingNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Board of Visitors v. CoughlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Ass'n v. JorlingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by5 opinions
- Friends of Columbia Gorge v. Energy Fac. Siting Coun.Oregon Supreme Court · 2020
- Wagnon v. Arkansas Health Services AgencyCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2001
- Brodsky v. ZagataNew York Supreme Court · 1996
- Brodsky v. ZagataAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Empire State Ass'n of Adult Homes, Inc. v. NovelloNew York Supreme Court · 2002