Legal Opinion
Nat Friedman & Son, Inc. v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 17, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Per curiam
In this action to remove a cloud on the title of certain lots, plaintiff was not required to present a claim to the comptroller under the provisions of section 261 of the charter. No equitable powers are vested in the comptroller and it would be an idle ceremony to present to him for adjustment a matter of this nature. (Flaxman v. City of New York, 98 Misc. 88; affd., 178 App. Div. 935; Penfield v. City of New York, 115 id. 502; Ahrens v. City of Rochester, 97 id. 480; Sammons v. City of Gloversville, 175 N. Y. 346.)
It is alleged that the property in question was exempt from taxation for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- National Bank of Chemung v. City of ElmiraNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Sammons v. . City of GloversvilleNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- In re Donner-Hanna Coke Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Matter of Donner-Hanna Coke CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Flaxman v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Schenker v. Village of LibertyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Redner v. City of New YorkCivil Court of the City of New York · 1967
- City of New York v. WatkinsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1991
- Nat Friedman & Son, Inc. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933