Viscusi
v.
City of Schenectady

Supreme Court, Special Term, Schenectady CountySep 18, 1950
198 Misc. 732 (N.Y. Misc. 1950)
198 Misc. 732100 N.Y.S.2d 791

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Parisi v. Gloucester

    …The limitations upon and conditions of that leverage must therefore be strictly enforced. Viscusi v.…

  • Nardone v. Ryan

    …309 N.Y. 735; Matter of Glen Cove Shopping Center v. Suozzi, 8 Misc.2d 247; Matter of Melita v. Nolan, 126…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

September 18, 1950.

Poersch Sevits for plaintiff.

Cerrito Clayman for Carmelo De Paolo and another, defendants.

J. Vincent Smith, Corporation Counsel, for City of Schenectady, defendant.


The provisions of section 83 Gen. City of the General City Law here involved constitute a limitation on the general legislative powers of the common council and must be strictly construed. Concededly, the protest was not acknowledged. "The court may not exercise a dispensing power based on the principles of abstract justice fitting the particular case. It may only see that the requirements of the law are complied with." ( Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers, 254 N.Y. 91, 95.) In the absence of a protest which complies with the requirements of section 83 Gen. City of the General City Law, a majority vote of the council is adequate to pass a valid ordinance, amending the local zoning laws.

On an application for a temporary injunction, the right thereto must be clear, before it can be granted. This application fails to present such a situation.

Motion for temporary injunction denied.