Legal Opinion

Isenbarth v. Bartnett

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

Decided January 15, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The respondent’s motion, made at the close of relator’s case, did not raise a question as to the propriety of the proceeding, but related only to the sufficiency of the evidence presented. Under section 1322 of the Civil Practice Act, points of law should be raised by filing written objections *846at the time the petition is filed. Also, see, section 1331 of the Civil Practice Act. Mandamus is the proper • procedure to compel the granting of this permit, and the relator was not required to review the proceedings of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Village of Carthage v. . FrederickNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. People ex rel. Lankton v. RobertsNew York Supreme Court · 1915
  3. In re RussellNew York Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Matter of Leitner v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
  2. State Ex Rel. George v. HullWyoming Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Ellish v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of RamapoNew York Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Fox Meadow Estates, Inc. v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API