Legal Opinion
Armere Holding Corp. v. Bell
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 19, 1975PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.
Petitioner, designated a tentative sponsor of an urban renewal project, is not entitled, as a matter of constitutional due process, to an evidentiary hearing, findings of fact, and reasons for the determination before withdrawal of that designation. To be sure, if threatened governmental action involves a deprivation of a vital personal or economic right, due process would require notice and an opportunity to be heard (see, e.g., Sniadach v Family Finance Corp., 395 US 337, 341-342; Slochower v Board…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Colton v. BermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
- Fuller v. UrstadtNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Waltentas v. LipperDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
- Baroudi v. New York State Department of Environmental ConservationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Schwartz v. HudacsNew York Supreme Court · 1990
- Clark v. RockowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Tenant's Advisory Committee of Sky View Towers v. StarrNew York Supreme Court · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.