Strauss v. University of New York
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hilda Hegger, of the Estate of Fred P. Hegger, Plaintiff-Appellee v. George E. Green, and St. Luke's Hospital Center, Defendant-Appellant-Appellee (2d Cir. 1981)
- TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY v. Carp (Tex. 1967)
- Kee v. Baber (Tex. 1957)
- Sharrow v. Dick Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Hodes v. Axelrod (N.Y. 1987)
- Klepper v. Klepper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Department of Social Services ex rel. Sandra C. v. Thomas J. S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Schwartzberg v. Axelrod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Lap v. Axelrod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Wood v. Metropolitan Hotel Industry Stabilization Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- MATTER OF HODES v. Axelrod (N.Y. 1982)
- In re the Arbitration Between Board of Trustees & Maplewood Teachers' Ass'n (N.Y. 1982)
- Board of Education v. Nyquist (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- MATTER OF DOOLAN v. Boces (N.Y. 1979)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York (N.Y. 1979)
- Doolan v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services (N.Y. 1979)
- In re Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- In re the Adoption of Goldman (N.Y. 1977)
- Parkchester Apts. Co. v. Lefkowitz (N.Y. 1977)
- Quintard Associates, Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- Nelson v. Nationwide Measuring Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- Stato v. Squicciarini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- In re the Adoption of Shannon Linda T. (NYC Family Court 1976)
- In re Ray A. M. (N.Y. 1975)
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 decide the case, as it must be decided (see, e.g., Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 307 N. Y. 475, 486-487; Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 527, 536; Boardwalk & Seashore Corp. v. Murdock, 286 N. Y. 494, 498), on the basis of the law as it exists today. On January 25, 1957, which was the day following the argument of the appeal in this court, the regulation here involved was amended to add this sentence :
“ Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prevent the illumination of a sign setting forth the name of the practitioner and the word ‘ optometrist ’ provided that the illumination is not colored and such sign does not otherwise conflict with this regulation.”
Whether or not the regulation in its original form proscribed all ‘ ‘ illuminated ’ ’ signs, we need not consider, for it is plain beyond any doubt, that, by the amendment quoted above, it allows the use of an illuminated sign setting forth the name of the practitioner and the designation “ optometrist,” provided the illumination is not colored. The prohibitions contained in the regulation relating to the number and size of signs that may be used are reasonable and valid as, of course, are the other proscriptions aimed at glaring and flickering signs, as well as other signs that are illuminated.
The judgment should be modified by declaring that paragraph (g) of subdivision 1 of section 70 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, adopted on June 15-16, 1950, and as amended on January 25,1957, with respect to the use of signs by optometrists, is legally reasonable and therefore valid and, as so modified, affirmed.
Judgment modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.