From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of City of N.Y

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1936
5 N.E.2d 191 (N.Y. 1936)

Opinion

Argued October 15, 1936

Decided November 24, 1936

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

John W. Davis, Daniel J. Kenefick and Luke W. Finlay for Warren Leslie et al., appellants. Francis S. Bensel, David Barnett and W. Frederick Knecht for Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company et al., appellants.

Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel ( Phillip W. Haberman, Jr., Paxton Blair and Philip L. Wellens of counsel), for respondent.


A single question of power in the Supreme Court is involved in the certified question.

Upon this record we find no abuse (as matter of law) of the discretionary power of the Supreme Court. ( Hatch v. Central Nat. Bank, 78 N.Y. 487, 489; Matter of Tilden, 98 N.Y. 434, 439; Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325.) This leads to an affirmance.

We leave the merits to be determined upon the new trial which has been granted.

The order should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.

LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ., concur; CRANE, Ch. J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of City of N.Y

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1936
5 N.E.2d 191 (N.Y. 1936)
Case details for

Matter of City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 24, 1936

Citations

5 N.E.2d 191 (N.Y. 1936)
5 N.E.2d 191

Citing Cases

Matter of City of N.Y

But too much weight should not be allocated to the owner's conclusory statement of value. In Matter of City…