Legal Opinion
Amsterdam v. Goldstick
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided January 6, 1986PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Lewis R. Friedman, J.
At the trial of this action the court concluded, inter alia, that the respondent Mark Greenberg did not meet the requirements of Administrative Code of the City of New York § D2641.03 (a) (3) to serve as the managing agent for a New York City multiple dwelling. (Amsterdam v Goldstick, 128 Misc 2d 374 [Civ Ct, NY County 1985].) In this motion, denominated as one for "reargument”, Greenberg contends that the Administrative Code provision, as interpreted by the court, violates *132the "privileges and immunities” clause of the United States Constitution and…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Toomer v. WitsellSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Foley v. RocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Supreme Court of NH v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United Building & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cty. v. Mayor and Council of CamdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Amsterdam v. GoldstickCivil Court of the City of New York · 1987
- Amsterdam v. GoldstickAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1987
- Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. KoenigsbergCivil Court of the City of New York · 1986