Rugg v. State of New York
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The order appealed from is a nonunanimous reversal of a final order in a special proceeding and so no leave to appeal or certified questim was necessary (see Skakandy v. State of New York, 298 N. Y. 886; Natoli v. Board of Educ. of City of Norwich, 303 N. Y. 646). It cannot be said as matter of law that the allegations of the moving affidavit do not comply with subdivision 5 of section 10 of the Court of Claims Act, and, therefore, the matter of granting or denying the application was a discretionary one. The Appellate Division had full power to review the exercise of discretion in this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Skakandy v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Natoli v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
3Cited by13 opinions
- Winbush v. City of Mount VernonNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Kobylack v. KobylackNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Quintero v. Long Island Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1968
- Gielski v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1956
- Walach v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.