Case ID: nys_33/html/0942-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF SYRACUSE v. STACEY et al.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
    May 4, 1895.)
    Appeal from special term, Onondaga county.
    Proceedings by the city of Syracuse against Richard M. Stacey, the Skaneateles Savings Bank, and others, to condemn real estate. From “so much of the order made in said proceeding at a special term held in Syracuse on May 19, 1894, and entered in Onondaga county clerk’s office on June 20, 1894, confirming the award of commissioners of appraisal herein as allows or directs the recovery of costs against the plaintiff by the defendant herein, or any of them, and also from so much thereof as allows or directs recovery against the plaintiff of an •’dditional allowance by the defendants herein, or any of them,” petitioner appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.
    C. L. Stone, W. A. Beach, and Geo. N. Kennedy, for appellant.
    Knapp, Nottingham & Andrews, George Barrow, and Charles A. Hawley, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Inasmuch as we have reached the conclusion at this term, for the reasons stated in the opinion of HARDIN, P. J., in City of Syracuse v. Stacey, 33 N. Y. Supp. 929, that the order of confirmation and the judgment of the special term appointing commissioners should be reversed, and the appraisal vacated and set aside, it follows as a sequence that the order awarding costs to the respondents against the plaintiffs, and an extra allowance, in so far as it is appealed from, should fall and be vacated. Order, so far as it awards costs and an extra allowance to any of the respondents against the plaintiff, vacated and set aside.