People Ex Rel. Smith v. Walsh
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Van Meter v. H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. (Okla. 1935)
- Thomas v. Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1942)
- Concerned Citizens of Montauk, Inc. v. Lester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Marlos Development Co. v. Doering (New York Supreme Court 1962)
- New York Life Insurance v. Murdock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
- Platt v. Murdock (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- New York Life Insurance v. Murdock (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Woltman v. Murdock (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- Sena v. Gallagher (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- Hauser v. Arness (Wash. 1954)
- Matter of Thomas v. Board of Standards Appeals (N.Y. 1943)
- Matter of Reed v. Bd. of Standards Appeals (N.Y. 1931)
- Reed v. Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1930)
- Mazzarell v. Walsh (New York Supreme Court 1929)
- Riverside St. Clair Corp. v. Walsh (New York Supreme Court 1928)
- People ex rel. Gross v. Walsh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1925)
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
We agree with the construction of the Building Zone Resolution by the Appellate Division. (211 App. Div. 205.) The determination of the board of appeals was, however, based on an erroneous theory. It did not hear and determine the question under section 20 of the resolution. Proper practice would require that the matter be returned to the board to decide the application of the property owners on the correct theory rather than the Appellate Division should pass on the merits of the application. (People ex rel. Dawley v. Wilson, 200 App. Div. 537; affd., 235 N. Y. 587.)
As it seems clear that the board would exercise its power to vary the provisions of the resolution to the extent of granting the permit now before us under section 20, no substantial right of any party will be affected by an affirmance of the order appealed from.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Lehman, JJ., concur; Andrews, J., absent.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.