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.
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York to Acquire Title to Property for the Widening of Clinton Avenue in the Borough of Brooklyn. John C. Kluber, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent, 1901 — 167 N.Y. 624 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York to Acquire Title to Property for the Widening of Clinton Avenue in the Borough of Brooklyn. John C. Kluber, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent
167 N.Y. 624·New York Court of Appeals·1901·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
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York to Acquire Title to Property for the Widening of Clinton Avenue in the Borough of Brooklyn. John C. Kluber, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent.
(Argued June 5, 1901;
decided June 21, 1901.)
Matter of Olinton Avenue, 57 App. Div. 166, affirmed.
Appeal, hy permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made January 25, 1901, which reversed an order of Special Term vacating an order appointing commissioners of estimate and assessment in the proposed widening of Clinton avenue in the borough of Brooklyn.
The following are the questions certified: •
First. Is the act entitled “ An act in relation to Clinton avenue in the borough of Brooklyn in the city of New York,” and known as chapter 257 of the Laws of 1899, in violation of section 16, article 3 of the Constitution ?
. Second. Is the land sought to be taken by said act to be taken for a public use %
John F. Cla/rke for appellant.
J. Hampden Dougherty for property holders.
John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (William J. Carr of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs. The first question certified answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Lardón, Cullen and Werner JJ.