In re the Incorporated Village of Garden City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Incorporated Village of Garden City

15 A.D.2d 513, 222 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7222

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 513 (In re the Incorporated Village of Garden City) 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

In re the Incorporated Village of Garden City, 15 A.D.2d 513, 222 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

The fields to which this parcel is to be added are now public parking fields. Although the majority of the users of such parking fields may now be patients in the adjoining medical center and although some benefit does accrue to its owners and tenants, nevertheless, such benefit is incidental to the primary public use. A former private use of a parcel of land creates no presumption that its taking is not for a public purpose. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny the application, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, before an order of condemnation is made the owner here is entitled to a trial of the factual issue raised by her, namely: whether her property is sought to be taken primarily for a public or private use (Denihan Enterprises v. O’Dwyer, 302 N. Y. 451; City of Utica v. Damiano, 22 Misc 2d 804; Saso v. State of New York, 20 Misc 2d 826).

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

The fields to which this parcel is to be added are now public parking fields. Although the majority of the users of such parking fields may now be patients in the adjoining medical center and although some benefit does accrue to its owners and tenants, nevertheless, such benefit is incidental to the primary public use. A former private use of a parcel of land creates no presumption that its taking is not for a public purpose. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny the application, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, before an order of condemnation is made the owner here is entitled to a trial of the factual issue raised by her, namely: whether her property is sought to be taken primarily for a public or private use (Denihan Enterprises v. O’Dwyer, 302 N. Y. 451; City of Utica v. Damiano, 22 Misc 2d 804; Saso v. State of New York, 20 Misc 2d 826).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 513, 222 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-incorporated-village-of-garden-city-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack