In re Lexington Ave.

New York Supreme Court

In re Lexington Ave.

18 N.Y.S. 828

DecidedApril 14, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 828 (In re Lexington Ave.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Lexington Ave., 18 N.Y.S. 828 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Brent, P. J.

All the questions raised upon this appeal arising from the denial of the motion to set aside the report of the commissioners of estimate and assessment have been considered in cases decided herewith, and, so far as the appeal brings up the question as to the propriety of the denial of the motion for an order directing the commissioners to take testimony in respect to the claim of the appellant for compensation for his land taken for said avenue, we concur in the conclusion arrived at by the learned judge below, for the reasons stated in his opinion. We think that it is entirely clear that the motion should have been denied, both upon the ground of loches and upon the ground that the court should not disturb the rights which were supposed to be fixed by the order of the court confirming the report of the commissioners without notice to all the parties interested. The order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Van Brent, P. J.

All the questions raised upon this appeal arising from the denial of the motion to set aside the report of the commissioners of estimate and assessment have been considered in cases decided herewith, and, so far as the appeal brings up the question as to the propriety of the denial of the motion for an order directing the commissioners to take testimony in respect to the claim of the appellant for compensation for his land taken for said avenue, we concur in the conclusion arrived at by the learned judge below, for the reasons stated in his opinion. We think that it is entirely clear that the motion should have been denied, both upon the ground of loches and upon the ground that the court should not disturb the rights which were supposed to be fixed by the order of the court confirming the report of the commissioners without notice to all the parties interested. The order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lexington-ave-nysupct-1892.