From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanz v. Feola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1992
181 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 13, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in passing upon the constitutionality of a State statute without first providing notice to the Attorney-General, as required by CPLR 1012 (b) and Executive Law § 71 (see, 520 E. 81st St. Assocs. v Lenox Hill Hosp., 157 A.D.2d 138, 145, revd on other grounds 77 N.Y.2d 944). The lack of notice precludes this Court from passing upon the issue (see, Jefferds v Ellis, 122 A.D.2d 595, after remand 132 A.D.2d 321, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 708). Moreover, plaintiffs' argument that their predecessor in title obtained title to the disputed parcel of land by virtue of an 1848 conveyance from the State was not the theory upon which plaintiffs relied at trial; therefore, it is not properly before this Court (see, Lichtman v Grossbard, 73 N.Y.2d 792, 794, rearg denied 73 N.Y.2d 912).


Summaries of

Lanz v. Feola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1992
181 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Lanz v. Feola

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE F. LANZ et al., Appellants, v. JOSEPH C. FEOLA et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 13, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 52

Citing Cases

Rohring v. Niagara Falls

IV We do not address plaintiff's constitutional attack on article 50-B, raised for the first time on appeal…

People v. Crespi

Under the facts of this case, the County Court should not have passed upon the constitutionality of Penal…