Legal Opinion
Cannata v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 30, 1961PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
In our opinion, condemnation is authorized, not only for slum clearance, but also to eliminate areas of “ intangible ” physical blight, i.e., areas which tend to create slums or which tend to impair or arrest the sound growth of the city. Such a purpose is public; redevelopment may properly be accomplished by private persons; and the area condemned may thereafter be properly used for nonresidential purposes (People ex rel. Adamowski v. Chicago Land Clearance Comm., 14 Ill. 2d 74; Wilson v. City of Long Branch, 27 N. J. 360, cert. denied 358 U. S. 873; Redevelopment Agency of City & County of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Rockland Light and Power Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Redevelopment Agency v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Graham v. HoulihanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Opinion of the Justices to the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Russin v. Town of Union of Broome CountyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987