Bradford v. County of Suffolk
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Campus Communications, Inc. v. Earnhardt (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Matter of Tartaglia v. McLaughlin (N.Y. 1948)
- Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors (New York Supreme Court 1978)
- Zinder v. Board of Assessors (New York Supreme Court 1971)
- Bloom v. Mayor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1970)
- Kohilakis v. Harwood (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- Black River Regulating District v. Adirondack League Club (N.Y. 1954)
- Gorman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1952)
- Standard Brewing Co. v. Peachey (New York Supreme Court 1951)
- Apostolic Faith Rescue Mission v. Slipyan (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1949)
- Molnar v. Curtin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1948)
- Matter of Kahn (National City Bank) (N.Y. 1940)
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
This' action was .one. for. á judgment declaring two resolutions of the. Board .of Supervisors of Suffolk county and three ensuing items of a. tax warrant to" be unlawful and-void for -want of .statutory authorization *505 thereof. Special Term granted such a judgment. Pending an appeal by the defendant to the Appellate Division, the Legislature, by chapter 572 of the Laws of 1939, declared that the contested resolution of October 26, 1936, was as of the times in issue “ legalized and validated, notwithstanding any defect, irregularity or omission therein * * * or in the lack of statutory authority therefor.” The Appellate Division was bound to give effect to this curative statute (People ex rel. Clark v. Gilchrist, 243 N. Y. 173, 180) which interdicted the declaratory judgment granted by Special Term. Since no other relief was sought by plaintiffs, the complaint should have been dismissed by the Appellate Division.
"Whether the curative statute was, as plaintiffs claim, an attempt retroactively to confirm taxation is a .question that .need not be considered. (See Lennon v. Mayor, 55 N. Y. 361.)
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified so as to direct only that the complaint be dismissed on the law and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway,' JJ., concur.
Judgment accordingly. .
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.