Vizzi v. Town Bd., 313 N.E.2d 790 (NY 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Vizzi v. Town Bd., 313 N.E.2d 790 (NY 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Klein v. Quinnipiac University
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
In light of the guidance provided in the comments to § 330 of the Restatement (First) of Torts, and in light of the myriad cases from other jurisdictions recognizing that both express and implied permission is sufficient to render an entrant a licensee; see, e.g., Fitzsimmons v. State, 42 App. Div. 2d 636, 637, 345 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1973) (‘‘[a] licensee is one who enters the premises for his own benefit without invitation, but with permission, express or implied, of the owner or person in posses- sion’’), aff’d, 34 N.Y.2d 739 , 313 N.E.2d 790 , 357 N.Y.S.2d 498 (1974); we are assuming,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Octavius Vizzi
v.
Town Board of the Town of Islip, Defendant Octavius Vizzi v. Town of Islip
Action No. 1; Action No. 2.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 8, 1974.
313 N.E.2d 790
Lawrence E. Strear for motions., Eugene E. Kelly opposed.
Published

Motions granted and appeals dismissed, without costs. Treating the appeal from the judgment as one pursuant to CPLR 5601 (subd. [d]), the order brought up for review presents only issues which are moot. Treating the appeal from the judgment as one pursuant to CPLR 5601 (subd. [b], par. 2), the constitutional validity of a statutory provision is not the only question involved on the appeal. The order of the Appellate Division does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.