From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Connor v. Siebert

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 4, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 674 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Argued March 25, 1982

Decided May 4, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, DE FOREST C. PITT, J.

William E.J. Connor, pro se, and Earl Schram, Jr., Marc I. Gold and Daniel J. Tuczinski for William E.J. Connor and another, appellants.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( John Q. Driscoll and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law for the Appellate Division to decline to entertain these actions for declaratory judgments on the ground that "no justiciable controversy exists upon which [the court] can properly rule" (CPLR 3001; New York Public Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 N.Y.2d 527).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

In each case: Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Connor v. Siebert

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 4, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 674 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

Connor v. Siebert

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM E.J. CONNOR, Appellant, v. MURIEL SIEBERT, as Superintendent of…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 4, 1982

Citations

56 N.Y.2d 674 (N.Y. 1982)
451 N.Y.S.2d 714
436 N.E.2d 1316

Citing Cases

Passaro v. Lake George Park Comm

Notably, petitioner accepted the wharf and mooring permit issued to him without challenging any of its terms…

Matter of Prospect v. Cohalan

All these "ifs" render it both unnecessary and improper for us to express any view on whether a disaster…