1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 972 F.2d
  5. 972 F.2d 464 (1992)
 

U.S. v. CITY OF NEW YORK

No. 1708, Docket 92-6074.

972 F.2d 464 (1992)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, State of New York, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK and New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants. Carolyn MALONEY, Individually, and as member of the New York City Council, Petitioner-Appellant, Fernando Ferrer, Intervenor, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Albert F. Appleton, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Chambers Services, Inc., New York Organic Fertilizer Company, Merco Joint Venture, and Renewable Earth Products of New York City, Respondents-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided July 22, 1992.

Filed August 11, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

S. Mac Gutman (Halima A. Gutman, Gutman & Gutman, Forest Hills, N.Y., of counsel) for petitioner-appellants.

O. Peter Sherwood, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner, Lewis Finkelman, Helen P. Brown, of counsel), for Mun. appellees.

Alvin K. Hellerstein (Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City, of counsel) for respondent-appellee New York Organic Fertilizer Co.

Paul A. Winick (Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, New York City, of counsel) for respondent-appellee Chambers Services, Inc.

K. Richard Marcus (Vincent Torna, McDonough Marcus Cohen & Tretter, P.C., of counsel) for respondent-appellee Merco Joint Venture.

Deborah B. Zwany, Asst. U.S. Atty., E.D.N.Y. (Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Begleiter, Robin L. Greenwald, Asst. U.S. Attys., E.D.N.Y., Richard J. Weisberg, Asst. Regional Counsel, U.S. E.P.A., of counsel) for appellee U.S.

Before LUMBARD, VAN GRAAFEILAND and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

WALKER, Circuit Judge:

This case presents an intriguing question of first impression in this circuit and one not addressed below: do municipal taxpayers have standing to challenge the legality of municipal expenditures without establishing that a declaration that the expenditures are illegal will likely yield any savings to the taxpayer? Because controlling Supreme Court precedent grants a unique status to municipal taxpayer actions, we hold that municipal taxpayers...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases