Legal Opinion

Zimmerman v. Kramer

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMabio Pittoot, J.

This is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, hereinafter sometimes called the respondents, in which a variance was granted to Evelyn Kupferman to install a swimming pool. The respondents move to dismiss the petition for the failure to join as a respondent, Evelyn Kupferman — an allegedly indispensable party.

The relief sought by the petitioner was formerly obtainable in a certiorari proceeding (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1283). It is for the review of a quasi-judicial determination…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tod v. CrismanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  2. Matter of Applicat'n of Clementi v. . JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  3. Douglaston Civic Ass'n v. Board of Standards & AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
  4. Farrell v. Mayor of RevereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  5. Douglaston Civic Ass'n v. Board of Standards & AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 1951

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. 208 East 30th Street Corp. v. Town of North SalemAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  2. Anchorage v. McCabeAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Anchorage v. McCabeAlaska Supreme Court · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API