Bradford v. County of Suffolk

28 N.E.2d 932, 283 N.Y. 503, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 900
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 24, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 28 N.E.2d 932 (Bradford v. County of Suffolk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradford v. County of Suffolk, 28 N.E.2d 932, 283 N.Y. 503, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 900 (N.Y. 1940).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This' action was .one. for. á judgment declaring two resolutions of the. Board .of Supervisors of Suffolk county and three ensuing items of a. tax warrant to" be unlawful and-void for -want of .statutory authorization *505 thereof. Special Term granted such a judgment. Pending an appeal by the defendant to the Appellate Division, the Legislature, by chapter 572 of the Laws of 1939, declared that the contested resolution of October 26, 1936, was as of the times in issue legalized and validated, notwithstanding any defect, irregularity or omission therein * * * or in the lack of statutory authority therefor.” The Appellate Division was bound to give effect to this curative statute (People ex rel. Clark v. Gilchrist, 243 N. Y. 173, 180) which interdicted the declaratory judgment granted by Special Term. Since no other relief was sought by plaintiffs, the complaint should have been dismissed by the Appellate Division.

"Whether the curative statute was, as plaintiffs claim, an attempt retroactively to confirm taxation is a .question that .need not be considered. (See Lennon v. Mayor, 55 N. Y. 361.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified so as to direct only that the complaint be dismissed on the law and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway,' JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Campus Communications, Inc. v. Earnhardt
821 So. 2d 388 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors
97 Misc. 2d 637 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Zinder v. Board of Assessors
66 Misc. 2d 150 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
Bloom v. Mayor
35 A.D.2d 92 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Kohilakis v. Harwood
29 Misc. 2d 800 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Black River Regulating District v. Adirondack League Club
121 N.E.2d 428 (New York Court of Appeals, 1954)
Gorman v. City of New York
280 A.D. 39 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
Standard Brewing Co. v. Peachey
202 Misc. 279 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
Apostolic Faith Rescue Mission v. Slipyan
194 Misc. 666 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Matter of Tartaglia v. McLaughlin
79 N.E.2d 809 (New York Court of Appeals, 1948)
Molnar v. Curtin
273 A.D. 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
Matter of Kahn (National City Bank)
32 N.E.2d 534 (New York Court of Appeals, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 N.E.2d 932, 283 N.Y. 503, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-county-of-suffolk-ny-1940.