Legal Opinion

In re the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1957PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We are here concerned with the question of title to certain damage parcels (Nos. 6, 7A, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 131). Special Term held that title to those parcels, which it found were under water, was in the city for the reasons that: (1) the patent from Governor Kieft to Throckmorton, through whom the claimant asserts title, could not be considered to have granted any land under water; (2) the land under water was, accordingly, conveyed to the Town of Westchester, the city’s predecessor in title, by Governor Nicolls; and (3) the Dock Department mean high-water mark of 1897…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sage v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. Trustees of Brookhaven v. . StrongNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. De Lancey v. . PiepgrasNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. People v. FooteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
  5. People v. Tompkins-Kiel Marble Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1935

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. DiCanio v. Inc. Village of NissequogueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  2. In re the Estate of FordNew York Surrogate's Court · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API