Carter v. New York Central Railroad

273 A.D. 884, 77 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5121
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1948·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ,; Peck, P. J., and Callahan, J., dissent upon the ground that the abandonment of the use specified in the deed had either actually occurred or was imminent and inevitable at the time of the taking in coftdemnation. The breach of the condition subsequent in the deed was not the consequence of the condemnation, but the result of administrative mandates having the force of law effective as of dates antecedent to the proceedings in condemnation. We are of the opinion that under the circumstances the defendant is not entitled to more than a nominal part of the award, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the remainder. Accordingly, we vote to reverse the judgment appealed from and grant judgment for the plaintiffs to the extent indicated.

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

Carter v. New York Central Railroad, 273 A.D. 884, 77 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

273 A.D. 884 (Carter v. New York Central Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Turiano v. State
136 Misc. 2d 596 (New York State Court of Claims, 1987)
Erie Lackawanna Railway Co. v. State
38 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
Commonwealth v. Compañía de los Ferrocarriles
83 P.R. 565 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1961)
Estado Libre Asociado v. Compañía de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico
83 P.R. Dec. 587 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1961)
Bayles v. Long Island Rail Road
26 Misc. 2d 15 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)