Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 N.Y.2d 663

Birkeland v. State

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 11, 1984

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1984-12-11

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1986

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-12-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION OF THE COURT

¶2Memorandum.

¶3The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinions of Justice Sol R. Dunkin, Supreme Court, Queens County, and Justice William C. Thompson at the Appellate Division.

¶4We would emphasize that the Legislature’s enactment of chapter 846 occurred in the aftermath of the reorganization of the New York State court system and was parallel with similar legislation applicable, State-wide, to the other State judicial districts. In view of this particular situation and the express finding by the Legislature that the normal competitive procedures would greatly disrupt the functioning of the State court system, the statute cannot be said to offend the constitutional mandate (NY Const, art V, § 6).

¶5Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Chief Judge Cooke taking no part.

¶6Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

/64/ny2d/663 · .json · Public domain