Vill. of Dresden v. Cnty. of Yates, 98 N.E.2d 584 (N.Y. 1951). · Go Syfert
Search
Vill. of Dresden v. Cnty. of Yates, 98 N.E.2d 584 (N.Y. 1951). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Town of Huntington v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 79 A.D.3d 207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010)
How cited ↗
Cited for
302 N.Y. at 416 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Town of Huntington v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 79 A.D.3d 207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Although the County relies upon certain cases where a municipality’s refusal to fulfill ministerial obligations with respect to roads may be challenged in a mandamus proceeding (see Matter of Village of Dresden v County of Yates, 302 NY 41…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Village of Dresden, Yates County, against County of Yates
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 13, 1951.
Published opinion
98 N.E.2d 584
1951 N.Y. LEXIS 725
Homer C. Pelton for appellants., Paul Reed Taylor for respondents.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Subdivision 6 of section 231 of the Highway Law enjoins upon appellants in the circumstances of this case the duty to rebuild the bridge (see Town of Easton v. Canal Bd., 216 N. Y. 486; People ex rel. Keene v. Board of Supervisors, 142 N. Y. 271). The fact that the county superintendent has recommended abandonment of the bridge pursuant to subdivision 11 of section 231 does not excuse appellants from performing their duty under subdivision 6. Appellants may continue the pending abandonment proceeding and procure an order of abandonment, but until such order has become effective, their duty under subdivision 6 continues. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.