Legal Opinion

Scarsdale v. Jorling

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1995PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Donald N. Silverman, J.

The instant matter was originally commenced pursuant to CPLR article 78. It seeks various forms of relief including mandamus to review, mandamus to compel, and prohibition. Specifically, petitioner originally sought to: (1) annul and cancel an interim decision of respondent Thomas Jorling rendered on November 22, 1994, which held, in part, that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) lacked administrative authority to address (a) the imposition as of July 1, 1992 of increased water rate(s) charged to petitioner by *4the New York City Water…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Boreali v. AxelrodNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Nicholas v. KahnNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. City of New York v. State of New York Commission on Cable TelevisionNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. CuomoNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Forte v. Supreme CourtNew York Court of Appeals · 1979

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Village of Scarsdale v. JorlingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API