Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo

226 A.D. 681

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Young, Kapper and Seeger, JJ., vote for affirmance, being of opinion that the annexation proceedings were void and that, therefore, respondents’ property is not within the village; Lazansky, P. J., concurs, but is of opinion that under the Village Law the county clerk was not otherwise warranted in filing respondents’ map. The Village Law does not authorize the relief prayed for in paragraph B of the complaint, and to have granted the relief sought in paragraph C would have deprived respondents of their property without due process of law; Carswell, J., dissents.

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

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Young, Kapper and Seeger, JJ., vote for affirmance, being of opinion that the annexation proceedings were void and that, therefore, respondents’ property is not within the village; Lazansky, P. J., concurs, but is of opinion that under the Village Law the county clerk was not otherwise warranted in filing respondents’ map. The Village Law does not authorize the relief prayed for in paragraph B of the complaint, and to have granted the relief sought in paragraph C would have deprived respondents of their property without due process of law; Carswell, J., dissents.

Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo, 226 A.D. 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

226 A.D. 681 (Village of Lynbrook v. Cadoo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related