Crossin v. Woolf

175 A.D. 883, 160 N.Y.S. 1028

This text of 175 A.D. 883 (Crossin v. Woolf) 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
Crossin v. Woolf, 175 A.D. 883, 160 N.Y.S. 1028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Scott, J.:

The action was to foreclose a tax lien, and the respondent, purchaser at the sale, seeks to be relieved from his bid because, as he claims, a portion of the property purchased, formerly lying within the bed of Sixth avenue or Hawkstone street, is still subject to private street easements, notwithstanding said street has been legally closed. The case is governed, as we consider, by two recent decisions, one in the Court of Appeals and the other in this court. (Barber v. Woolf, 216 N. Y. 7; Astor v. Thwaites, 170 App. Div. 624.) These cases require a reversal of the order appealed from. The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Dowling and Smith, JJ., concurred. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

Barber v. . Woolf
109 N.E. 868 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Astor v. Thwaites
170 A.D. 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D. 883, 160 N.Y.S. 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crossin-v-woolf-nyappdiv-1916.