In re Seidl

Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs, upon the ground that there was a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute. The record shows that with full knowledge of the progress of the work the relator allowed the same to proceed without objection or protest. Kelly, P. J., Manning and Kapper, JJ., concur; Lazansky and Hagarty, JJ., dissent, with the following memorandum: The commissioner of public works had no authority to levy an assessment for benefit upon relator’s property because of the failure of the city clerk to comply with section 282 of the Charter of the City…