Legal Opinion

In re the Assessment of the Cost & Expense of the Improvement of Central Parkway

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1931PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

Petitioners have instituted this proceeding pursuant to the provisions of sections 164-166 of the Second Class Cities Law for the cancellation of assessments levied by the city of Schenectady against their properties for the improvement of an alleged public street in that city known as Central parkway on the ground that the city officials have no jurisdiction to levy the same.

The facts are not in dispute and only questions,of law are involved.

In the year 1913 the city acquired by condemnation a tract of land for park purposes which is designated and known as Central Park. This land was paid…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. ArmstrongNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. In the Matter of SharpNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  3. Sebring v. QuackenbushNew York Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Sebring v. QuackenbushAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
  5. Hoy v. HubbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Aldrich v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Gewirtz v. City of Long BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Kirkwood v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961
  5. 795 Fifth Avenue Corp. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1963

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API