Legal Opinion
Ossining Urban Renewal Agency v. Lord
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 8, 1976PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJasen, J.
In this condemnation proceeding appellant Pine Top Building Corp., the owner of an easement in one of the parcels condemned, sought leave to intervene as a party defendant. The trial court, granting permission to Pine Top to intervene, held that its easement had been extinguished by the condemnation. The Appellate Division reversed, on the law, holding that the statement of facts submitted pursuant to CPLR 3222 was not sufficient to enable the court to determine whether the easement had been extinguished. Implicit in this holding was the view that the easement was not extinguished as a matter…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gates v. . De La MareNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Matter of City of RochesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Mtr. of County of Nassau (Gelb-Siegel)New York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Crouch v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Merriman v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1989
- Coccio v. ParisiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Thomas Gang, Inc. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- MATTER OF OSSINING URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY v. LordNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Bay Islip Associates v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.