Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schulz v. Town Board of Queensbury

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

Decided September 17, 1998Published

1DissentMikoll, J.

I respectfully dissent. I would find that plaintiffs’ claim is properly the subject of a declaratory judgment action and thus timely commenced within the six-year limitations period (CPLR 213 [1]).

Plaintiffs contend that Resolution No. 252, permanently closing what was previously a public highway, is an ultra vires legislative enactment. Specifically, they argue that Highway Law § 171 (2), under which defendant Town Board of Queens-bury purported to act, governs only the closure of “highways by dedication” and not “highways by use”, such as Fuller Road, and thus the resolution was an invalid…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. McBarnetteNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Albany Area Builders Ass'n v. Town of GuilderlandNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Granada Buildings, Inc. v. City of KingstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Horey v. . Village of HaverstrawNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  5. Shawangunk Holdings, Ltd. v. Superintendent of Highways of Town of ShawangunkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

16 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