Legal Opinion

In re Gillespie

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1940PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSchirick, J.

This is an application by the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the city, to vacate the award herein, upon the ground of fraud and newly-discovered evidence.

*1042There can be no question as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this motion, even though the award has been affirmed on appeal. (Keister v. Rankin, 34 App. Div. 288; Corley v. New York & Harlem R. R. Co., 12 id. 409.)

The condemnation proceeding was a result of the release, by the city, into the Esopus creek of additional waters impounded by the Gilboa dam and carried into the Esopus creek by way of the Shandaken tunnel.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

Keister v. RankinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
In re City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
Matter of City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
McPhillips v. FitzgeraldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
In re the Application of the City of New York, Acting by & Through the Commissioner of Docks, Relative to Acquiring Right & Title to & Possession of Certain Real Property, Lands, Lands under Water & Lands under Water Filled in, Not Now Owned by the City of New York, Situated Along the Westerly & Northerly Shores of Jamaica BayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Arechiga v. Housing Authority of City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958