People ex rel. Fox v. McDonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Fox v. McDonald

258 A.D. 926, 16 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7603

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 926 (People ex rel. Fox v. McDonald) 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

People ex rel. Fox v. McDonald, 258 A.D. 926, 16 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying a motion by the appellants to dismiss the petition and quash a writ of certiorari, by which it is sought to review certain assessments of the real estate of the respondents, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to take testimony and determine as a question of fact whether or not the respondents’ objections were filed as required by law. While upon a motion to quásh a writ of certiorari all the allegations of the petition are deemed to be admitted, we feel that the preliminary determination of the question raised by the affidavits herein may make unnecessary a protracted and expensive litigation. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying a motion by the appellants to dismiss the petition and quash a writ of certiorari, by which it is sought to review certain assessments of the real estate of the respondents, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term to take testimony and determine as a question of fact whether or not the respondents’ objections were filed as required by law. While upon a motion to quásh a writ of certiorari all the allegations of the petition are deemed to be admitted, we feel that the preliminary determination of the question raised by the affidavits herein may make unnecessary a protracted and expensive litigation. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 926, 16 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-fox-v-mcdonald-nyappdiv-1939.