New York Court of Appeals, 1972

Smith v. Levitt

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 7, 1972

30 N.Y.2d 934; 287 N.E.2d 380; 335 N.Y.S.2d 687; 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1140

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Cine 42nd Street Theater Corporation v. The Nederlander Organization, Inc. (2d Cir. 1986)
Cine 42nd Street Theater Corp. v. Nederlander Organization, Inc. (2d Cir. 1986)
Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp. (New York Supreme Court 2013)
New York Charter Schools Ass'n v. DiNapoli (New York Supreme Court 2008)
Dinallo v. DiNapoli (N.Y. 2007)
Serio v. Hevesi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority (N.Y. 1990)
In re the Arbitration between Albany Port District Commission & Fitzpatrick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Long Island Rail Road v. Long Island Lighting Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Gembala v. Audobon Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
R. P. Adams Co. v. Nist (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
John Grace & Co. v. State University Construction Fund (N.Y. 1978)
Dubendorf v. New York State Education Department (New York Supreme Court 1978)

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

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Appellants fail to demonstrate any legal insufficiency in respect of the Comptroller’s audit of the payments by respondent New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) from the first instance appropriation. The constitutional and statutory provisions regarding that audit do not require like audit of payments from UDC’s bond proceeds, which are neither ‘ ‘ money of the state ’ ’ nor ‘1 money under its control ’ ’ (N. Y. Const., art. V, § 1) or within “ the possession, custody or control of any officer, agent, or agency of the state” (State Finance Law, § 111). Respondent UDC, a public benefit corporation (New York State Urban Development Corporation Act [L. 1968, ch. 174, § 4]), is not a State agency within the intendment of the constitutional and statutory provisions cited (see Matter of Plumbing, Heating, Piping & Air Conditioning Contrs. Assn. v. New York State Thruway Auth., 5 N Y 2d 420, 423, 424). The other asserted grounds of petitioners ’ application and proposed suit are not within the scope of the procedures so provided by the Constitution and the statute (Matter of Oneida County Forest Preserve Council v. Wehle, 309 N. Y. 152).

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, ' Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.