Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF LACQUA v. O'CONNELL, 279 App. Div. 1074 (1952)

In the Matter of LEO LACQUA, Petitioner, against JOHN F. O'CONNELL et al.,Constituting the N.Y. State Liquor Auth., Respondents., 279 A.D. 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1952)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1952-05-02
Topic
general

MATTER OF LACQUA v. O'CONNELL, 279 App. Div. 1074 (1952) In the Matter of LEO LACQUA, Petitioner, against JOHN F. O'CONNELL et al.,Constituting the New York State Liquor Authority, Respondents.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. May 2, 1952.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF LACQUA v. O'CONNELL, 279 App. Div. 1074 (1952). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF LACQUA v. O'CONNELL,279 App. Div. 1074(1952)
In the Matter of LEO LACQUA, Petitioner, against JOHN F. O'CONNELL et al.,
Constituting the New York State Liquor Authority, Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
May 2, 1952.
Motion to transfer proceeding, and petitioner's application for a stay pending determination thereof, to the third judicial department, to be there heard and determined, denied, without costs, and such proceeding and application ordered to be placed on the calendar of this court for Friday, May 9, 1952. This proceeding, commenced in the Supreme Court, New York County, was transferred for disposition, pursuant to the provisions of section 1296 of the Civil Practice Act, to a term of the Appellate Division in the first department, and was transferred to this court, in furtherance of justice, pursuant to the provisions of section 618 of the Civil Practice Act. The removal of the proceeding from the Special Term to the superior jurisdiction of the Appellate Division brought the determination of the State Liquor Authority before that court for review, upon an appeal, within the meaning of section 618 of the Civil Practice Act, and petitioner, although he could in the first instance have commenced his proceeding in the third judicial district, may not, as a matter of right, require that it be transferred for disposition to the third department.
Present — Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ.