Legal Opinion
Drew v. Schenectady County
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 5, 1996PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Ciparick, J.
Judiciary Law § 39 (3) (a) requires a political subdivision, such as respondent Schenectady County (the County), to furnish all "goods, services and facilities” that the State did not assume under the provisions of the Unified Court Budget Act of 1976. On this appeal, we must determine whether the term "facilities” as used in Judiciary Law § 39 (3) (a) includes parking for court employees. For the reasons that follow, we hold that it should be so construed.
To coincide with the completion of a jail on the sites formerly used for parking facilities, the County…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kurcsics v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Moran Towing & Transportation Co. v. New York State Tax CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Drew v. Schenectady CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by11 opinions
- Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co.Civil Court of the City of New York · 2001
- Voicestream Wireless Corp. v. Assessor of the City of TroyNew York Supreme Court · 2003
- Schenectady Ambulance & Oxygen Service, Inc. v. New York State Department of HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Matter of Gandin v. Unified Ct. Sys. of State of N.Y.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Mejia v. SantosNew York Supreme Court · 2005
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.