City of Auburn v. Town of Sennett
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Caruso v. Moss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Village of Saugerties v. Town of Saugerties (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)
- Board of Trustees of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
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
Report of Referees unanimously confirmed, without costs, and judgment granted in favor of petitioner adjudging that the proposed annexation is in the over-all public interest. Memorandum: The sole issue in this proceeding is whether the proposed annexation to the City of Auburn of intervenor’s property situated in the Town of Sennett is in the “over-all public interest” (General Municipal Law, § 712, subd 1). The territory proposed to be annexed consists of 15 lots in the Town of Sennett comprising approximately 2.4 acres of land. This area is contiguous to land in the City of Auburn consisting of approximately four acres which is also owned by intervenor. The only access to the City of Auburn property is through the land located in the Town of Sennett. This access would be through the development of a proposed roadway upon which the Town of Sennett lots front. The Town of Sennett is not able to provide funds or assistance in developing roads, sewer or water facilities without formation of special districts which the town is unwilling to do. The intervenor is financially unable to install the necessary roads or water and sewer lines but the City of Auburn has expressed a willingness to undertake the necessary development and improvement of roads and ancillary facilities. It appears that without annexation the property in question will remain undeveloped and useless to all parties involved in this proceeding. Petitioner city has approved annexation, while respondent town has rejected it. Based upon an agreed statement of facts submitted to them by the parties, the Referees appointed by this court pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 712 of the General Municipal Law found that the proposed annexation would be in the over-all public interest. Petitioner and intervenor now move to confirm the Referees’ report and respondent cross-moves for its rejection. This
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.