Davis v. City of New York

3 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Mansour v. County of Monroe

    1 A.D.3d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    Permitting the county to lease park property for a drive- through holiday-lights display and charge per-vehicle admission

    In any event, the County's action in granting to LeBeau the right to operate the light show in the County park and to charge an admission fee to defray LeBeau's up-front investment and operating expenses is permissible under the statute. The use in question tends to promote popular enjoyment of and recreation in the park and thus does not deviate from the public purposes for which the park was established ( see generally 795 Fifth Ave. Corp. v. City of New York, 15 N.Y.2d 221, 225-226; Matter of Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach Manhattan Beach v. Planning Commn. of City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 26, 36; Davis v. City of New York, 50 Misc.2d 275, 279-280; cf. Williams v. Gallatin, 229 N.Y. 248, 253-254; Johnson v. Town of Brookhaven, 230 A.D.2d 774, 774-775; Matter of Central Parkway, 140 Misc. 727, 729).

  2. Tuck v. Heckscher

    65 Misc. 2d 1059 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    It is also noteworthy that while research by the court has revealed no prior specific judicial interpretation of section 229, two reported cases involving challenges to "park gifts" have restricted the powers of the Board of Estimate with respect thereto to its budgetary functions only. The acceptance of such gifts have been viewed therein by the courts as a "Mayoral function" rather than that of the Board of Estimate, as petitioners, in substance, urge here (see McNicholas v. City of New York, N.Y.L.J., July 5, 1967, p. 12, col. 3; Davis v. City of New York, 50 Misc.2d 275). It necessarily follows, therefore, that inasmuch as the Mayor of the City of New York has accepted the gift of the Lehman Pavilion, within the scope of his Charter powers, there is no need for the Board of Estimate approval enunciated in section 229 of the Charter.

  3. Riley v. City of Buffalo

    63 Misc. 2d 143 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1970)

    They do not pertain to the factual situation here presented. The plaintiff, in its memorandum, cites the case of Davis v. City of New York ( 50 Misc.2d 275) and Williams v. City of New York ( 118 App. Div. 756, affd. 192 N.Y. 541). These cases are distinguishable from the facts before us.