You are here: / / Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
,

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs, in a nuisance action, sought to enjoin the defendants “from maintaining more than one ‘main building’ on the premises, allegedly in violation of the Village Code.”  The Second Department, citing the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, ruled that the case for an injunction had not been made out because the plaintiffs never sought a determination of the legality of the use of the premises from the administrative agency responsible for zoning:

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction “generally enjoins courts having concurrent jurisdiction to refrain from adjudicating disputes within an administrative agency’s authority, particularly where the agency’s specialized experience and technical expertise is involved” …. Here, the plaintiffs failed to properly seek a determination regarding the legality of the use of the premises under the Village Code from the administrative bodies authorized to administer and enforce the Village’s zoning law … . Massaro v Jaina Network Sys, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03066, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

You might also like
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED ALL HIS CHILDREN BASED SOLELY ON HIS GUILTY PLEA TO ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN.
DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WHEN SHE MADE A LEFT TURN INTO PLAINTIFF’S PATH, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, STATEMENT IN A MEDICAL RECORD ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S SPEED WAS UNRELATED TO DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT AND WAS NOT SOURCED, THE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; TWO CAUSES OF ACTION NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
Answering Juror’s Question Outside Presence of Defendant, Counsel and Other Jurors Required Reversal.
No Ambiguity in Contract; No Resort to Extrinsic Evidence
SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS SUPPORTED BY A SWORN DENIAL OF SERVICE AND SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Six-Year Delay in Raising Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Waived the Obje... Duty to Defend Versus Duty to Indemnify—Question of Fact About Whether...