Legal Opinion
Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 5, 1949PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFroessel, J.
Two motions for an order dismissing the complaint, (1) under subdivisions 4 and 5 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, by the defendants, Town of North Hempstead *623and the members of its board of appeals, and (2) under subdivision 5 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, by the Carle Place Water District and its commissioners.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Roosevelt Field, Inc., has for more than twenty years last past been and still is the owner of certain real property in the town of Hempstead, county of Nassau, which it has used and still is using as an airport and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Dowsey v. Village of KensingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Baddour v. City of Long BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Skolnick v. MartinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1964
- Thompson-Starrett Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1956
- Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North HempsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1950