From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1923
205 App. Div. 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)

Opinion

January, 1923.


Order reversed on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The respondent's motion, made at the close of relator's case, did not raise a question as to the propriety of the proceeding, but related only to the sufficiency of the evidence presented. Under section 1322 of the Civil Practice Act, points of law should be raised by filing written objections at the time the petition is filed. Also, see, section 1331 of the Civil Practice Act. Mandamus is the proper procedure to compel the granting of this permit, and the relator was not required to review the proceedings of the buildings inspector or the city council by certiorari. ( People ex rel. Lankton v. Roberts, 90 Misc. Rep. 439; affd., 171 App. Div. 890; People ex rel. Dilzer v. Calder, 89 id. 503; Matter of Russell, 158 N.Y. Supp. 162; Village of Carthage v. Frederick, 122 N.Y. 268, 271.) Rich, Kelly, Jaycox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1923
205 App. Div. 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)
Case details for

Matter of Isenbarth v. Bartnett

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of MARY ISENBARTH, Appellant, for a…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1923

Citations

205 App. Div. 845 (N.Y. App. Div. 1923)

Citing Cases

Matter of Leitner v. New York Telephone Co.

On appeal to this court the question was specifically presented and argued in the briefs of counsel but the…