Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry R. Winthrop, Respondent, v. Francis K. Pendleton, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Appellant, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 533 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry R. Winthrop, Respondent, v. Francis K. Pendleton, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Appellant
192 N.Y. 533·New York Court of Appeals·1908·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Henry R. Winthrop, Respondent, v. Francis K. Pendleton, as Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Appellant.
People ex rel. Winthrop v. Delany, 120 App. Div. 801, modified.
(Argued March 30, 1908;
decided April 14, 1908.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 15,1907, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to institute proceedings to ascertain damages resulting to premises of the relator from the closing of a street in the city of New York and granted such motion.
Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly, John P. Dunn and Thomas C. Blake of counsel), for appellant.
Merle I. St. John for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order modified so as to strike therefrom the following provision : “And such other owners of property abutting on Depew Place between 42nd and 43rd Streets as may be affected,” and as so modified affirmed, without costs in this court to either party; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.