W. P. Tanner-Gross & Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

W. P. Tanner-Gross & Co. v. City of New York

188 A.D. 932

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

DecidedMay 15, 1919

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D. 932 (W. P. Tanner-Gross & Co. v. City of New York) 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

W. P. Tanner-Gross & Co. v. City of New York, 188 A.D. 932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The appellant has an adequate remedy at law. The questions it seeks to have decided in this action may all be determined in the condemnation proceeding which plaintiff seeks to enjoin (Matter of Mayor, 22 App. Div. 124; Hooker v. City of Rochester, 57 id. 530; affd., 172 N. Y. 665; Matter of City of Rochester [In re Neun], 102 App. Div. 99.) In such condemnation proceeding an appeal may be taken from the order overruling plaintiff’s objections, and upon such appeal all proceedings may be stayed. (Matter of Mayor, supra; Hooker v. City of Rochester, supra; Matter of City of Rochester [In re Neun], supra; Code Civ. Proc. § 1351.) This seems its proper remedy because the questions involved in this action cannot be raised on objections to the commissioners’ report or upon appeal from the order confirming the same. (Matter of Department of Public Parks, 85 N. Y. 459; Matter of Grand Boulevard, 33 App. Div. 210, 212; Matter of Mayor, etc., 186 N. Y. 237.) Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

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

The appellant has an adequate remedy at law. The questions it seeks to have decided in this action may all be determined in the condemnation proceeding which plaintiff seeks to enjoin (Matter of Mayor, 22 App. Div. 124; Hooker v. City of Rochester, 57 id. 530; affd., 172 N. Y. 665; Matter of City of Rochester [In re Neun], 102 App. Div. 99.) In such condemnation proceeding an appeal may be taken from the order overruling plaintiff’s objections, and upon such appeal all proceedings may be stayed. (Matter of Mayor, supra; Hooker v. City of Rochester, supra; Matter of City of Rochester [In re Neun], supra; Code Civ. Proc. § 1351.) This seems its proper remedy because the questions involved in this action cannot be raised on objections to the commissioners’ report or upon appeal from the order confirming the same. (Matter of Department of Public Parks, 85 N. Y. 459; Matter of Grand Boulevard, 33 App. Div. 210, 212; Matter of Mayor, etc., 186 N. Y. 237.) Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D. 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-p-tanner-gross-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack