Town Board of Brighton v. City Council of Rochester
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- MATTER OF MARCUS v. Baron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- City of Utica v. Town of Frankfort (N.Y. 2008)
- Common Council v. Town Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- City of Jamestown v. Town of Ellicott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- City of Port Jervis v. Town of Deer Park (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- City of Rensselaer v. Town Board of Town of North Greenbush (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Village of Elmsford v. Town of Greenburgh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Village of Skaneateles v. Town of Skaneateles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- City of Auburn v. Town of Sennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Motion to reject referees’ report granted; judgment granted in favor of petitioner, without costs, adjudging that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest and directing annexation. All concur; Goldman, J., not participating. Memorandum: The sole issue in this proceeding is whether the proposed annexation to the Town of Brighton of intervenors’ property, known as 1301 Highland Avenue in the City of Rochester, is in the "over-all public interest” (General Municipal Law, § 712, subd 1). Petitioner town has approved annexation, while respondent city has rejected it. The referees appointed by this court pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 712 of the General Municipal Law found that the proposed annexation would not be in the over-all public interest. Petitioner and intervenors now move to reject the referees’ report and the respondent cross-moves for its confirmation. While the referees’ report should be carefully considered, it is advisory only (City of Batavia v Town of Batavia, 45 AD2d 203, 204). This court must make its own determination and adjudication de novo and enter judgment on the issue of whether the annexation is in the over-all public interest (General Municipal Law, § 712, subd 10). In reaching that determination, we must focus upon and weigh "the benefit or detriment to the annexing municipality, the territory proposed to be annexed, and the remaining governmental unit from which the territory would be taken” (Matter of City of Saratoga Springs v Town of Greenfield, 34 AD2d 364, 366, mot for lv to app den 28 NY2d 482; see, also, General Municipal Law, § 711, subd 1). The territory proposed to be annexed is located on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Edgemere Drive in the City of Rochester. Its westerly and southerly boundaries also constitute the dividing line between the Town of Brighton and the City of Rochester, making it potentially annexable (General Municipal Law, § 703, subd 1). Indeed, in 1914, while still vacant land, it was part of an annexation from the Town of Brighton to the City of Rochester. The territory is a building lot upon which an architecturally designed house, now intervenors’ residence, was constructed in 1941. While the house is designated as being located on Highland Avenue, its front entrance actually faces onto Edgemere Drive and it otherwise appears in every respect to be located on Edgemere Drive. All other homes on Edgemere Drive, including one located directly across the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.