TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re City of New York

In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York to Acquire Certain Real Estate at Massapequa, in the Towns of Hempstead and Oyster Bay, in the County of Nassau, for the Purposes of Water Supply

In re City of N.Y., 119 A.D. 74 (1907)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 19, 1907
Judges
Jenks
Citations
119 A.D. 74103 N.Y.S. 9111907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865
Headnotes
Practice — appeal — Appellate Division cannot certify to Court ot Appeals after expiration of two terms. When the term at which an order of the Appellate .Division was made has expired as well as the succeeding term, the court has no power to allow au . appeal to the Court of Appeals-and to certify that a question has arisen which should be reviewed by that court. The permission cannot be granted under the-guise of-an order nunc pro tunc as of the original term at which the order was made. t
Summary
Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Jenks

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Jenks, J.:

This is a motion made at this term of this court for .an order nuno pro tuno as of the 7th day of March, 1907, the date of filing the notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, allowing an appeal *75 herein to the Court of Appeals and certifying that a question lias' arisen which ought to be reviewed by that court. Our order, of which a review is sought, .was made on the llth day of January, 1907. The ensuing term of this court began on the fourth Monday of February, 1907, and ended on March' 22, 1907. The present term began on the third Monday of April, 1907, If we could grant this motion we would do so, but our view, is that our power was spent with the lapse of the January and the March terms (Porter v. International Bridge Co., 163 N. Y. 79, 85 ), and we cannot now by an order nuno gyro tuno “ do indirectly ” what we are “ forbidden to do directly.?’ (Guarantee Trust Co. v. P., R. & N. E. R. R. Co., 160 N. Y. 1 .) For this reason the motion "is denied.

Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1908: 11913: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Terwilliger v. Browning, King Co.101 N.E. 463 (N.Y. 1913)
  2. In re Water Supply112 N.Y.S. 1149 (1908)

Most recent

  1. Terwilliger v. Browning, King Co.101 N.E. 463 (N.Y. 1913)
  2. In re Water Supply112 N.Y.S. 1149 (1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Philadelphia, Reading & New England R.R., 54 N.E. 575 (N.Y. 1899) 45
Porter v. Int'l Bridge Co., 57 N.E. 174 (N.Y. 1900) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list