Legal Opinion
Cooney v. Katzen
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 4, 1963PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge H. Vinette, J.
The petitioner has commenced the above-entitled proceeding (Civ. Prac. Act, art. 78), pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law, to vacate an order made by the respondents and dated July 9, 1963. Respondents have served the above-entitled notice of cross motion to enforce its said order, pursuant to section 298.
This matter involved article 15 (§§ 290-301) of the Executive Law entitled “ State commission for human rights.”
*237The facts herein are substantially undisputed. The petitioner is the owner of the premises known as 237 Croly Street, Syracuse, New York. Situated thereon is a multiple…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Holland v. EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination v. ColangeloMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1962
- New York State Commission Against Discrimination v. Pelham Hall Apartments, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1958
- American Jewish Congress v. CarterNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Martin v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1960
3Cited by4 opinions
- Philadelphia v. PriceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Lawrence Gardens, Inc. v. State Commission for Human RightsNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Mangum v. SanguedolceNew York Supreme Court · 1968
- Filicore v. JosselNew York Supreme Court · 1997