Diack v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diack v. City of New York

187 A.D. 312, 175 N.Y.S. 364, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463

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

DecidedApril 11, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D. 312 (Diack v. City of New York) 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

Diack v. City of New York, 187 A.D. 312, 175 N.Y.S. 364, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

The action is ejectment. The realty of the plaintiffs was directly affected by two proceedings in eminent domain. First, the city condemned the perpetual underground easement, and second, the fee simple absolute, free from all liens and incumbrances. The second proceeding was affirmed by us in Matter of Public Service Commission (167 App. Div. 908), and by the Court of Appeals in 217 New York, 61.

I am of opinion that the action of ejectment does not lie, in that it is a collateral attack upon a judgment. (Chesapeake & Western R. Co. v. Washington, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., 99 Va. 715; Dolan v. Mayor, etc., 62 N. Y. 472; Secombe v. Railroad Co., 90 TJ. S. [23 Wall.] 108; Robert v. Supervisors of Kings, 3 App. Div. 366; affd., 158 N. Y. 673; Mayer v. Mayor, etc., 101 id. 284; Donnelly v. City of Brooklyn, 121 id. 9, 18; Burke v. City of Kansas, 118 Mo. 309; Atchison & Nebraska R. Co. v. Forney, 35 Neb. 607; Van Schoick v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 20 N. J. L. 249; Matter of Public Service Commission, 167 App. Div. 908; Black Judg. [2d ed.] § 246 [citing, inter alia, Farrington v. Mayor, etc., 83 Hun, 124]; Lewis Em. Dom. [3d ed.]' § 870.)

I advise affirmance, with costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Kelly, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Jenks, P. J.:

The action is ejectment. The realty of the plaintiffs was directly affected by two proceedings in eminent domain. First, the city condemned the perpetual underground easement, and second, the fee simple absolute, free from all liens and incumbrances. The second proceeding was affirmed by us in Matter of Public Service Commission (167 App. Div. 908), and by the Court of Appeals in 217 New York, 61.

I am of opinion that the action of ejectment does not lie, in that it is a collateral attack upon a judgment. (Chesapeake & Western R. Co. v. Washington, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co., 99 Va. 715; Dolan v. Mayor, etc., 62 N. Y. 472; Secombe v. Railroad Co., 90 TJ. S. [23 Wall.] 108; Robert v. Supervisors of Kings, 3 App. Div. 366; affd., 158 N. Y. 673; Mayer v. Mayor, etc., 101 id. 284; Donnelly v. City of Brooklyn, 121 id. 9, 18; Burke v. City of Kansas, 118 Mo. 309; Atchison & Nebraska R. Co. v. Forney, 35 Neb. 607; Van Schoick v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 20 N. J. L. 249; Matter of Public Service Commission, 167 App. Div. 908; Black Judg. [2d ed.] § 246 [citing, inter alia, Farrington v. Mayor, etc., 83 Hun, 124]; Lewis Em. Dom. [3d ed.]' § 870.)

I advise affirmance, with costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Kelly, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D. 312, 175 N.Y.S. 364, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diack-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1919.

Opinion

I advise affirmance, with costs.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack