Legal Opinion
Murray v. LaGuardia
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 2, 1943PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchreiber, J.
In this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act petitioners object to and seek injunctive relief with regard to a proposed contract made pursuant to an enabling statute (Redevelopment Companies Law; L. 1943, ch. 234) between the City of New York and Stuyvesant Town Corporation* a “ Redevelopment ” company organized by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, whereby the area between 14th and 20th Streets and First Avenue and Avenue C, Manhattan, is to be cleared and rehabilitated.
Petitioners are property owners in the area and contend that the enabling act is unconstitutional in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Matter of N.Y. City H. Authority v. MullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Pocantico Water Works Co. v. BirdNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Corn Exch. Bank v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Coler v. Corn Exchange BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Oneonta Light & Power Co. v. SchwarzenbachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pagano Realty Corp. v. O'DwyerNew York Supreme Court · 1948
- Pratt v. La GuardiaNew York Supreme Court · 1944
- Amsterdam Urban Renewal Agency v. BohlkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Dorsey v. Stuyvesant Town Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1947
- Schenectady Urban Renewal Agency v. BucciNew York Supreme Court · 1975