Matter of City of Rochester
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department^ entered January 8, 1913, modifying and affirming as' modified the confirmation by the common council of the city of Rochester of the report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Commissioners Hubbard and Crittenden were not disinterested because of their liability to pay part of the award made by them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department^ entered January 8, 1913, modifying and affirming as' modified the confirmation by the common council of the city of Rochester of the report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Commissioners Hubbard and Crittenden were not disinterested because of their liability to pay part of the award made by them. This disqualified them to act as commissioners. (Darling v. Pierce, 15 Hun, 546; Matter of Hancock, 27 Hun, 81; Matter of…
1Opinion of the CourtCollin, J.
The appellant, Otis Elevator Company, asserts that the common council of the city of Eochester should have rejected the report of the commissioners in this proceeding for the reason, among others, that two of the three commissioners were interested because each . owned lands within the district uppn which their award was to be assessed.
The proceeding was instituted, under provisions of the charter of the city of Eochester, to acquire lands for the widening of Frank street of that city. The appellant owned a large part of those lands. Eegularly in the course of the proceeding the common…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Oakley v. . AspinwallNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Matter of RyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- John v. Andrews Institute for GirlsNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
- People Ex Rel. Howlett v. Mayor & Common CouncilNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Diveny v. . City of ElmiraNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Gould v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Beer Garden, Inc. v. New York State Liquor AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Wilcox v. Supreme Council of Royal ArcanumNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- In re the Arbitration between Friedman & FriedmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.