Matter of Petition of Deering
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009)
- First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Maine Turnpike Auth. (Me. 1957)
- In re the City of New York (N.Y. 1952)
- In re the City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1949)
- New York City Tunnel Authority v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (N.Y. 1946)
- City of New York v. Verizon New York Inc. (N.Y. 2005)
- Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Portland (Or. 1985)
- New Rochelle Water Co. v. City of New Rochelle (New York Supreme Court 1965)
- New Rochelle Water Co. v. City of New Rochelle (New York Supreme Court 1962)
- New Rochelle Water Co. v. State of NY (N.Y. 1961)
- City of New York v. Brooklyn Borough Gas Co. (New York Supreme Court 1951)
- Westchester El. R.R. Co. v. W. Co. P. Comm. (N.Y. 1931)
- Westchester Electric Railroad v. Westchester County Park Commission (N.Y. 1931)
- Transit Commission v. Long Island Railroad (N.Y. 1930)
- City of New York v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad (N.Y. 1920)
- John J. Creem Co. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1919)
- New York Inter-Urban Water Co. v. City of Mount Vernon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1918)
- Moffat v. City & County of Denver (Colo. 1914)
- Town of Queensbury v. Hudson Valley Railway Co. (New York Supreme Court 1912)
- Malone, Fort Covington & Hopkins Point Railway Co. v. Spuyten Duyvil Construction Co. (New York Supreme Court 1909)
- In re City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1907)
- CB & Q. RAILWAY v. Drainage Comm'rs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
- New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Drainage Commission of New Orleans (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
- Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. Brunswick Village Corp. (Me. 1899)
- Glens Falls Gas Light Co. v. Van Vranken (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
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
The learned counsel for the city fails to satisfy us that any authority exists for imposing upon the owner of adjacent property, expenses incurred by the gas company in removing and replacing its pipes. These things were not made necessary by the construction of any sewer or culvert, and consequently the ordinances of the city, as cited by him, have no application. For aught that appears here, although authorized to lay its pipes through the public streets (Laws of 1848, chap. 37, § 18), the company took the risk of their location and should be required to make such changes as public convenience or security requires, and at its own cost and charge.
Nor is the amount so small that an appellate court can disregard it, when such conclusion would require a reversal of the decision of the court below. In the case to which the learned counsel refers (Colman v. Shattuck, 62 N. Y. 349, 363), the excess of assessment did not exceed, in either instance, five cents, and we agreed with the Supreme Court that it might be disregarded. In the case before us, that court has thought the item of sufficient importance to-be corrected, and in this conclusion there is certainly no legal error. Nor do the points *363 made by the petitioner, upon his appeal, show any substantial defect in the proceedings. The objections taken by him were sufficiently considered by the General Term, and we agree with that court in the conclusion that they are untenable.
The order should, therefore, be affirmed, but as both parties have appealed, it should be without costs.
Order affirmed, without costs.
All concur, except Andrews, J., absent.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.