Village of Dresden v. County of Yates

98 N.E.2d 584, 302 N.Y. 415, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 725
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 13, 1951·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Subdivision 6 of section 231 of the Highway Law enjoins upon appellants in the circumstances of this case the duty to rebuild the bridge (see Town of Easton v. Canal Bd., 216 N. Y. 486; People ex rel. Keene v. Board of Supervisors, 142 N. Y. 271). The fact that the county superintendent has recommended abandonment of the bridge pursuant to subdivision 11 of section 231 does not excuse appellants from performing their duty under subdivision 6. Appellants may continue the pending abandonment proceeding and procure an order of abandonment, but until such order has become effective, their duty under subdivision 6 continues. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Village of Dresden v. County of Yates, 98 N.E.2d 584, 302 N.Y. 415, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 725 (N.Y. 1951).

98 N.E.2d 584 (Village of Dresden v. County of Yates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Town of Huntington v. County of Suffolk
79 A.D.3d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Informal Opinion No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1986