Pospisil v. Anderson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendants, including the defendant councilpersons constituting the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, held, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were likely to establish that the proposed rezoning was not consistent with any comprehensive plan (see, Udell v Haas, 21 NY2d 463). However, it has long been the rule that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the courts will not enjoin the legislative process on the ground that the proposed legislation may be invalid (Matter of One Pelham…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Udell v. HaasNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Dune Associates, Inc. v. AndersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- H. Development Corp. v. City of YonkersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Udell v. McFadyenNew York Supreme Court · 1965
- Davlee Construction Corp. v. Town of HuntingtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Peterson v. CorbinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Bauer v. Planning BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Caruso v. Town of Oyster BayNew York Supreme Court · 1997