Central School District No. 1 v. Senprevivo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central School District No. 1 v. Senprevivo

257 A.D. 1029, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1029 (Central School District No. 1 v. Senprevivo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central School District No. 1 v. Senprevivo, 257 A.D. 1029, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Even though the land in question should be found to be reasonably necessary for the public use in connection with the central school, its condemnation is precluded by section 464 of the Education Law, which prohibits the acquisition, without the consent of the owner, of a yard necessary to the use of buildings. In our opinion the evidence establishes that the premises sought to be acquired are reasonably necessary as a range for poultry in connection with the poultry bouses which have been constructed at large expense on the part of the premises of the defendant Mary Senprevivo other than that sought to be acquired. All concur, except Crosby, J., who dissents and votes for reversal on the law and facts and for judgment in favor of the plaintiff. (The judgment dismisses the petition in a condemnation proceeding.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Even though the land in question should be found to be reasonably necessary for the public use in connection with the central school, its condemnation is precluded by section 464 of the Education Law, which prohibits the acquisition, without the consent of the owner, of a yard necessary to the use of buildings. In our opinion the evidence establishes that the premises sought to be acquired are reasonably necessary as a range for poultry in connection with the poultry bouses which have been constructed at large expense on the part of the premises of the defendant Mary Senprevivo other than that sought to be acquired. All concur, except Crosby, J., who dissents and votes for reversal on the law and facts and for judgment in favor of the plaintiff. (The judgment dismisses the petition in a condemnation proceeding.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1029, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-school-district-no-1-v-senprevivo-nyappdiv-1939.