Legal Opinion

Francisco v. O'Connell

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1948PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFrank S. Coyne, J.

By order to show cause dated April 14, 1948, returnable April 21,1948, petitioner instituted a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority. By cross motion respondent applied on the return day for an order dismissing the petition upon the ground that the present proceeding had not been instituted within the four-month limitation period prescribed by section 1286 of the Civil Practice Act. The question presented is whether the proceeding should be dismissed because it has not been timely brought. Section 1286 of the Civil…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Harry Mottsman & Co. v. State Liquor AuthorityNew York Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Peekskill Packing Co. v. Board of HealthNew York Supreme Court · 1939
  3. In re Peekskill Packing Co. for a Peremptory Order of MandamusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Camperlengo v. State Liquor AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
  2. Davis v. KingsburyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
  3. Delbello v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  4. Chavich v. Board of Examiners of the Board of EducationNew York Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Davis v. KingsburyNew York Court of Appeals · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API