Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of JOHN W. DE PEYSTER to Vacate an Assessment for Building a Sewer
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1879-09
Citations: 25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of JOHN W. DE PEYSTER to Vacate an Assessment for Building a Sewer.
Judges: Brady, P. J., and Daotels, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 25
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of JOHN W. DE PEYSTER to Vacate an Assessment for Building a Sewer.
JYew York city, assessments in — the department of public woi'lcs is not deprived * by chapter 335 of 1873 of the authority over the eonstmation of sewers given by chapter 137 of 1870.
Appeal from an order made at Special Term, denying a motion of tbe petitioner above named to vacate an assessment in the above matter.
The court at General Term said : “We deem the decision of the Special Term correct within the doctrine established by the case In the Matter of Zborowslci (68 N. Y., 88). That case embraces substantially the questions which are presented by this appeal, with one exception, viz. : whether the charter of 1873, chapter 335 (Laws 1873), has changed the law, so as to deprive the department of public works of the authority which it possessed in regard to the construction of sewers under the charter of 1870, chapter 137. We are satisfied, from an examination of the statutes referred to, that no such change was intended, or accomplished by the Legislature. The one hundred and eighteenth section of the statute of 1878 contains the following significant declaration : 11 The several departments shall continue to possess the same powers, and perform the same duties as heretofore, except as herein otherwise provided.” We fail to discover any provision of the charter of 1873 which deprives the department of public works of the authority which it possessed, in this respect, under the charter of 1870. We therefore regard the decision above cited decisive of this appeal, and consequently the order must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Elliott Sandford, for the appellant. Hugh L. Oole and J. A. Beall, for the mayor, etc., respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
INGalls, J.;
Brady, P. J., and Daotels, J., concurred.
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.