Case ID: ny-2d_21/html/1036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Irving V. A. Huie et al., Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, Respondents, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property on Behalf of the City of New York, in the County of Sullivan, for the Purposes of Providing an Additional Supply of Water for the Use of the City of New York. Abe Furman, Appellant.
    Submitted April 1, 1968;
    decided April 18, 1968.
   Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether under Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee (352 U. S. 948) we were bound, despite our own procedural rule that reargument on the basis of a subsequent appellate court decision may not be granted by our lower courts after the time to appeal from their decisions has elapsed, to consider claimant’s contention that the form of notice provided herein was insufficient under Schroeder v. City of New York (371 U. S. 208). The Court of Appeals, in passing upon this contention, held that Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee {supra) did not require that our rule as to what may be considered on such a motion for reargument be modified and therefore did not reach the question of the applicability of Schroeder v. City of New York {supra). [See 20 N Y 2d 568.]