Stirnweis v. Cacioppo

180 N.E. 364, 258 N.Y. 632, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 1299
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stirnweis v. Cacioppo. Read the opinion of the Court — 258 N.Y. 68
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 3, 1932·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff asks for a reargument upon the ground that the street closing act of 1895 (Laws of 1895, ch. 1006) applies only to public highways and not to private roads (Matter of Wallace Ave., 222 N. Y. 139).

Nothing to the contrary was intimated in the opinion of the court.

We said in that opinion (258 N. Y. 68, 71): Fresh Pond road was shown on this [i. e., the Drube] map, and became a highway by dedication, or so the record fairly indicates.”

If the fact was to the contrary, the plaintiff should have proved it.

The motion should be denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements.

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

Stirnweis v. Cacioppo, 180 N.E. 364, 258 N.Y. 632, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 1299 (N.Y. 1932).

180 N.E. 364 (Stirnweis v. Cacioppo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stirnweis v. Cacioppo
179 N.E. 262 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
In Re Acquiring Title to Wallace Avenue
118 N.E. 506 (New York Court of Appeals, 1917)