Legal Opinion

In re Nunez

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1917Published

Application for the payment of an award made to unknown owners.

1Opinion of the CourtCropsey, J.

This application is the usual one for payment of an award made to unknown owners. The court took the proof instead of sending the matter to a referee. The practice of referring such matters is unnecessary, involves delay and, unless they are sent to the official referees, causes the property owner *647additional expense. Only a few minutes are required to take all the proof. The petitioner has established his right to the awards. This is not disputed. The only controversy arises over the city’s contention that the awards should be applied in partial payment of an assessment for benefit laid in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Genet v. . City of BrooklynNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  2. Hayden v. . PierceNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  3. Haight v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1885
  4. Nehasane Park Assn. v. . LloydNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  5. In re Bankers Investing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910

3 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