In re Mayor of New York
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1916)
- Stahl Soap Corp. v. City of New York (N.Y. 1959)
- Stahl Soap Corp. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- In re the City of New York (N.Y. 1952)
- Stirnweis v. Cacioppo (N.Y. 1932)
- In re City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
- In re Scheibel (New York Supreme Court 1919)
- Barber v. . Woolf (N.Y. 1915)
- In re Morris Ave. (New York Supreme Court 1915)
- In re City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1912)
- In re Avenue between Ft. Washington & Haven Avenues (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1912)
- Mayor of Baltimore v. Brengle (Md. 1911)
- Schonleben v. Swain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- In re the Mayor, Aldermen & Commonalty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- Gillender v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1908)
- People ex rel. Brown v. Metz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Mitchell v. Einstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1905)
- In re the Application of the Mayor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Matter of Mayor, Etc., of New York (N.Y. 1901)
- In re Mayor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1900)
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
We think that the provisions of chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895 are within the constitutional powers of the legislature, and that the order in this case should be affirmed. It is doubtless true that some of the provisions of the act pertaining to the acquiring of the fee and easements in discontinued streets, if they stood alone, might be construed as authorizing the taking of property for a private use, but when these provisions are considered in connection with the other provisions of the act, we find that they all aim at one object, and that is the laying out and opening of the streets and avenues of a city according to a plan adopted. Confessedly, this is for a public purpose, and we think that the acquiring of the fee and easements in the old roadways which are discontinued should be treated as incident and necessary to carry out the public improvement authorized by the provisions of the act.
We have not thought it necessary to enter upon a discussion of this question, for the reason that the very able opinion written below, in which we fully concur, covers all the points involved.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs, and the questions certified answered in the affirmative.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.