From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Durham R. Corp. v. La Fetra

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Dec 1, 1920
113 Misc. 536 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1920)

Summary

In People ex rel. Durham R. Corp. v. La Fetra (230 N.Y. 451) the court after adverting to the conditions which called for a remedy said: "Curative action is needed.

Summary of this case from People v. Weller

Opinion

December, 1920.

Stoddard Mark (George L. Ingraham, John M. Stoddard and Alexander C. McNulty, of counsel), for motion.

John P. O'Brien, Corporation Counsel (George P. Nicholson and Russell Lord Tarbox, of counsel), opposed.

Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General, opposed.

William D. Guthrie and Julius Henry Cohen, Special Deputy Attorneys-General, opposed.

Elmer G. Sammis and Bernard Hershkoff, for the Joint Legislative Committee on Housing, opposed.


This application for a peremptory writ of mandamus rests upon the proposition that chapter 942 of the Laws of 1920, being a part of the recent emergency housing legislation, is unconstitutional. The chief grounds of that contention are considered in People ex rel. Brixton Operating Corp. v. La Fetra, 113 Misc. 527. But the further contention is made here that section 15 of article III of the Constitution of this state was violated in the manner in which the act was passed. Without attempting to discuss the numerous points and authorities drawn to my attention in this briefs, I content myself with stating my conclusions upon one or two points which, if my views are correct, necessarily determine the controversy. The section of the Constitution in question does not prescribe any particular form of method of certification by the governor to the necessity of the immediate passage of the bill. A message to the senate was therefore a certification of the fact sufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution. No further certification to the assembly was necessary. The original message sufficiently identified the bill to which he referred and there is nothing in the constitutional provision to prevent the amendment to the bill in the course of its passage through either or both houses of the legislature after the governor's certificate of necessity has been issued. Application denied, with fifty dollars costs.

Application denied.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Durham R. Corp. v. La Fetra

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Dec 1, 1920
113 Misc. 536 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1920)

In People ex rel. Durham R. Corp. v. La Fetra (230 N.Y. 451) the court after adverting to the conditions which called for a remedy said: "Curative action is needed.

Summary of this case from People v. Weller
Case details for

People ex Rel. Durham R. Corp. v. La Fetra

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE ex rel. DURHAM REALTY CORPORATION, Relator, v . EDWARD B. La FETRA…

Court:Supreme Court, New York Special Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1920

Citations

113 Misc. 536 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1920)
185 N.Y.S. 638

Citing Cases

Rail Road Co-op. B. L. Assn. v. Boston Bldg. Estates

( Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 230 N.Y. 634; affd., 258 U.S. 242; 66 L.Ed. 595; 42 S.Ct. 289, affg. 194 A.D.…

People v. Weller

To concede that there is no cure for the evil excepting through a remedy initiated by the managers of…