Utica Cheese, Inc. v. Barber
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hamptons Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. v. Moore (N.Y. 1981)
- Matter of Honovich v. County of Putnam (New York Supreme Court, Putnam County 2025)
- Matter of Honovich v. County of Putnam (New York Supreme Court, Putnam County 2025)
- Matter of Flosar Realty LLC v. New York City Hous. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Davidson v. LaGrange Fire District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- O'Connor v. Ginsberg (New York Supreme Court 2011)
- Williamsville Clare Bridge Operator, Inc. v. Noveleo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Brodsky v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York Supreme Court 2003)
- Jamaica Neighborhood Based Alliance Coalition, Inc. v. Department of Social Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Belli v. Berman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Fixler v. Karrell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Gardner v. Constantine (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- 2433 Knapp Street Restaurant Bar Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrod (N.Y. 1985)
- Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Kupersmith v. Public Health Council (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Geary v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Hurwitz v. Regan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Utica Cheese, Inc. v. Barber (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Maxwell v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (New York Supreme Court 1981)
- United University Professions, Inc. v. Newman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
In this article 78 proceeding petitioner seeks to compel the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets to act on its milk dealer license application, which has now been pending for some 16 months. Under subdivision 1 of section 301 of the State Administrative Procedure Act, the commissioner is required to reach his decision "within reasonable time” (see, also, State Administrative Procedure Act, § 102, subd 3). Though the statute does not define this period with specificity, we would have to deem it elapsed in this, case save for the commissioner’s advice as to the unusual nature of the matters he has been compelled to investigate in aid of his ultimate determination. But, as appears from the pertinent facts and circumstances revealed in the record in this proceeding and fairly summarized in the memorandum at the Appellate Division, the commissioner is unable to provide a better estimate of when, if ever, he will be able to ascertain the relevance and availability of the further information he seeks other than that it will be at some unknown time in the future. Fairness to the applicant therefore requires that a hearing be held and a determination rendered promptly. To that end, the order of the Appellate Division is modified to direct that these steps be accomplished no later than 90 days from the date of this decision and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order modified, with costs to petitioner, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.