Grimmer v. . the Tenement House Dept. of the City of N.Y.
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State Bank v. Bell (New York Supreme Court 1949)
- Matter of Broderick v. City of New York (N.Y. 1946)
- In re Lawrence-Cedarhurst Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1936)
- Dick v. Murphy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1927)
- People ex rel. Lewis v. Graves (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1927)
- Wintersteen v. . City of New York (N.Y. 1917)
- People v. Newman (N.Y. 1973)
- Compson v. Walters (New York Supreme Court 1967)
- Ins. Co. of North America v. S. E. Senior (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
- Central School District No. 2 of Towns of Coeymans v. New York State Teachers Retirement System (New York Supreme Court 1965)
- Curtis v. Eide (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- Weber v. Lang (N.Y. 1962)
- Lockport Union-Sun & Journal, Inc. v. Preisch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
- Hill v. Water Power & Control Commission (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- In re Bowers (New York Supreme Court 1952)
- People ex rel. Provident Loan Society v. Chambers (New York Supreme Court 1949)
- Cummings v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1949)
- Lawrence Constr. Corp. v. State of New York (N.Y. 1944)
- Benvenga v. La Guardia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1944)
- Dole v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1943)
- Hudson-Harlem Valley Title & Mortgage Co. v. White (New York Supreme Court 1937)
- People ex rel. Trustees of Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Miller (New York Supreme Court 1937)
- People v. Fuller (New York Court of General Session of the Peace 1935)
- Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1934)
- Town of Amherst v. County of Erie (N.Y. 1933)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The motion for a re-argument must be denied in accordance with well-established rules. Reference is made on this motion to additional provisions of the Building Code as opposed to the construction which we have adopted. We have been unable to consider that *550 Code in its entirety, for while it was introduced in evidence on the trial, only a few sections were printed in the record and called to our attention, and we are unable to take judicial notice of its provisions.
The corporation counsel earnestly urges in substance that for many years the construction now urged by him of the various statutes and ordinances has been adopted and followed by the municipal authorities and has been generally acquiesced in and relied upon and that to overthrow this construction will result in confusion. There is no question that the practical construction of a statute by those for whom the law was enacted or by public officers whose duty it is to enforce it, acquiesced in by all for a long period of time, is of great importance in its interpretation in a case of serious ambiguity. (Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50, 54; City of New York v. N. Y. City Ry. Co., 193 N. Y. 543.) But whatever competent and convincing facts'or evidence there maybe within this rule concerning the matters here involved, it is sufficient for the purposes of this motion to say that no such evidence was introduced or principle urged on the trial and argument of this case, and, therefore, upon this appeal we have been and now are unable to take into account any such consideration.
Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscook and Collin, JJ., concur.
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.