Cooper v. City of Brooklyn

New York City Court

Cooper v. City of Brooklyn

18 N.Y.S. 438, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 266

DecidedMarch 28, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 438 (Cooper v. City of Brooklyn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooper v. City of Brooklyn, 18 N.Y.S. 438, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 266 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant is.the owner of real property situated on the east side of Tliroop avenue, between Putnam and Jefferson avenues, in tjiis city. This action was brought to cancel an assessment for flagging the sidewalk in front of said premises. Two proceedings were begun,—one to flag Throop avenue, east side; and the other to flag the same block on both sides'. The sidewalks were actually laid under a contract in the second proceeding, but by mistake the assessment was laid in the first. An action was brought in this court to have the said assessment declared void, and by consent judgment was entered vacating the same. The city authorities then laid an assessment in the second proceeding, which the plaintiff in this action unsuc[439]*439cessfully endeavored at special term to have canceled. The judgment in the prior action was not conclusive. It does not appear hy the record on what ground the assessment was vacated. The first and second requests to find as conclusions of law are unsupported by any finding of fact, or, if they can be treated as findings .of fact, are not sustained by the evidence, and it does not appear that the questions litigated in this action were passed upon in the prior action. The burden rests upon the plaintiff to establish the former adjudication. Bell v. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202, 16 N. E. Rep. 55. We have carefully examined the record, and hold that the assessment in question was in all respects valid. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant is.the owner of real property situated on the east side of Tliroop avenue, between Putnam and Jefferson avenues, in tjiis city. This action was brought to cancel an assessment for flagging the sidewalk in front of said premises. Two proceedings were begun,—one to flag Throop avenue, east side; and the other to flag the same block on both sides'. The sidewalks were actually laid under a contract in the second proceeding, but by mistake the assessment was laid in the first. An action was brought in this court to have the said assessment declared void, and by consent judgment was entered vacating the same. The city authorities then laid an assessment in the second proceeding, which the plaintiff in this action unsuc[439]*439cessfully endeavored at special term to have canceled. The judgment in the prior action was not conclusive. It does not appear hy the record on what ground the assessment was vacated. The first and second requests to find as conclusions of law are unsupported by any finding of fact, or, if they can be treated as findings .of fact, are not sustained by the evidence, and it does not appear that the questions litigated in this action were passed upon in the prior action. The burden rests upon the plaintiff to establish the former adjudication. Bell v. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202, 16 N. E. Rep. 55. We have carefully examined the record, and hold that the assessment in question was in all respects valid. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 438, 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-city-of-brooklyn-nycityct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack