Legal Opinion

Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 9, 1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff seeks to have declared unconstitutional an amendment of the Building Zone Resolution of the City of New *483York in so far as it restricts plaintiff’s premises to residence use. Defendants appeal from the order denying their motion for summary judgment.

Although this motion was made pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice and cannot be determined thereunder (Felberose Holding Corp. v. N. Y. Rapid Transit Corp., 244 App. Div. 427), in accordance with the request of appellants and under their prayer for “ other and further relief ” we have considered it as made pursuant to rule…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Felberose Holding Corp. v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  2. People Ex Rel. Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. MurdockNew York Court of Appeals · 1936

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Siembab v. SiembabNew York Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Anolick v. AnolickNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Douglas Elliman, LLC v. TWP Real Estate, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  4. Douglas Elliman, LLC v. TWP Real Estate, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  5. Goldsmith v. WaterburyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API