vested interest in any rule in New York

1998In addition, an individual does not have a vested interest in any rule of law or legislative policy which entitles him to have such law or policy remain unaltered for his or her benefit (see, Matter of Eagan v Livoti, 287 NY 464 ).

1998An individual does not have a vested interest in any rule of law or legislative policy which entitles him to have such law or policy remain unaltered for his or her benefit (see, Matter of Eagan v Livoti, 287 NY 464 ).

1981It is elementary that “no person has a vested interest in any rule of law, entitling him to have it remain unaltered for his benefit” (Truax v Corrigan, 257 US 312, 348 ; see, also, Middleton v Texas Power & Light Co., 249 US 152 ; New York Cent.

1939(Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 348 );” and again (sit p. 145): “ Every change in. the remedies open to parties to a contract does not constitute an impairment of its obligation.

2024Preston Co v Funkhouser , 261 NY 140, 144 [1933] affd, 290 US 163 [1933] ["Nor has a person a vested interest in any rule of law entitling him to have the rule remain unaltered"]).

2024Preston Co v Funkhouser , 261 NY 140, 144 [1933] affd, 290 US 163 [1933] ["Nor has a person a vested interest in any rule of law entitling him to have the rule remain unaltered"]).

1998This does not constitute a due process protected interest since a person does not have a vested interest in any rule of the common law (see, Montgomery v Daniels, 38 NY2d 41, 56-57 ).

1971No one has a vested interest in any rule of law or legislative policy which entitles him to have that rule remain unaltered for his benefit (Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Saxl, 328 U. S. 80 , 83 ; Matter of Eagan v. Livoti, 287 N. Y. 464 ; Oriental Blvd.

1971Co. v. Heller, 58 Misc 2d 920, 928 , mod. 34 A D 2d 811).

1964The cases are legion which consistently express this well-settled principle of law: ‘ ‘ no person has a vested interest in any rule of law or legislative policy which entitles him to have it remain unaltered for his benefit ” (Matter of Eagan v. Livoti, 287 N. Y. 464, 468 ; Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N. Y. 125 ; I.

1943The principle is applicable that “ The mere fact that the statute is retroactive does not bring it in conflict with the Federal Constitution. * * * Nor has a *431 person a vested interest in any rule of law entitling him to have the rule remain unaltered.” (Preston Co. v. Funkhouser, 261 N. Y. 140, 144 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 .) As already noted, the rules of administration heretofore set forth were tentatively stated and expressly recognized as subject to change.

1942Perrine v. Connolly, 217 N. Y. 570, 576 .) As no person has a vested interest in any rule of law or legislative policy which entitles him to have it remain unaltered for his benefit (Preston Co. v. Funkhouser, 261 N. Y. 140, 144 ; New York Central R.

1936(See Judiciary Law, § 474; Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 24; Rules of the Industrial Board, rule 17-a; Matter of Fisch, 188 App. Div. 525 .) Even if some of the common-law rights of the plaintiff have been abrogated or restricted, the provisions of the amended statute do not offend against any vested right. “ No person has a vested interest in any rule of law entitling him to insist that it shall remain unchanged for his benefit.” (N. Y.