Legal Opinion

Spadanuta v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1962PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMario Pittoni, J.

The defendants move to strike each of the first three causes of the complaint for failure to state facts *500sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The motion is granted as to the third, but denied as to the first and second.

The first cause of action: This seeks to restrain defendants from proceeding with an urban renewal project on the ground that the acts of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rock-ville Centre are illegal and void because of a conflict of interest of the Mayor who participated in the proceedings, contrary to section 332 of the Village Law. The alleged conflict, in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kaskel v. ImpellitteriNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Talcott v. . City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Benincasa v. Incorporated Village of Rockville CentreNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Chelnik v. WagnerNew York Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Chelnik v. WagnerNew York Supreme Court · 1955

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Spadanuta v. Incorporated Village of Rockville CentreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  2. Spadanuta v. Inc. Village On Rockville CentreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API