Summary
In Rozler, Justice Hancock, as he then was, explained when analyzing parallel provisions of the Village Law, the words "'not inconsistent with any general law'" found in section 10 (1) (i) and (ii) must be read as "impliedly subject to an exception where * * * the inconsistency has been specifically authorized by the Legislature in the same section as the limitation."
Summary of this case from Kamhi v. Town of YorktownOpinion
Argued October 27, 1978
Decided December 7, 1978
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, JOHN H. DOERR, J.
Urban Rozler, appellant pro se. Edward J. Murty, Jr., for respondents.
Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion by Mr. Justice STEWART F. HANCOCK, JR., at the Appellate Division ( 61 A.D.2d 46).
Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE.