Sesto v. Mielke
Decision Date | 10 February 1961 |
Citation | 28 Misc.2d 228,212 N.Y.S.2d 866 |
Parties | Application of Concetto SESTO and Frances Sesto, Petitioners, v. Alfred E. E. MIELKE, as Assessor of the Village of Lindenhurst, and Joseph F. Bassano, William K. Beilstein, William Zwick, John W. Suriano and Edward G. Trainor, as and constituting the Board of Trustees of the Village of Lindenhurst, Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
Housel & Mishkin, Lindenhurst, for petitioners.
Charles J. Cowan, Lindenhurst, for respondents.
This proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act seeks to compel the respondent Assessor of the Village of Lindenhurst to affix his signature to, and accept for filing, a certain Certificate of Partial Abandonment of a Subdivision pursuant to subdivision 3 of Sec. 335 of the Real Property Law.
Petitioners are the owners of two tracts of land situate on the north side of Sunrise Highway in the Village of Lindenhurst and the Town of Babylon. These parcels are described in two subdivision maps filed in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk in the years 1870 and 1879, respectively. It appears that these maps, taken together, describe a major portion of all land within the boundaries of the Village of Lindenhurst. Petitioners' two parcels are separated by '42nd Street', an unopened street which was laid out on the two subdivision maps but never formally dedicated and title to which is in the petitioners.
In accordance with Section 335, subdivision 3 of the Real Property Law, petitioners executed a written Certificate of Partial Abandonment of a Subdivision covering the two tracts and that portion of 42nd Street lying between. After having obtained the consent of the Assessor of the Town of Babylon endorsed on the Certificate, petitioners submitted it to the respondent Assessor of the Village of Lindenhurst, who, on instructions from the respondent Board of Trustees of the Village, refused to affix his consent thereto.
Section 335, subdivision 3 of the Real Property Law, insofar as is here applicable, states as follows:
(Italics added.)
The respondents' answer, while admitting that the subject street was never formally dedicated, opened or used as a public highway, asserts that it is 'necessary for the use of owners, occupants or other persons having an interest in the subdivision.' It appears that a 1942 line and grade map of the Village of Lindenhurst, prepared for the purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Henderson
...law, unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or illegal (Matter of Larkin v. Schwab, 242 NY 330 ...)" (Matter of Sesto v. Mielke, 28 Misc.2d 228, 230, 212 N.Y.S.2d 866 (Supreme Court, Suffolk County 1961)). Moreover, People v. Shedrick (supra) held also that Article 16 of the Judic......
-
Ignaczak v. Ryan
...apply for an abandonment of the Street or postdated the Assessor's October 2008 determination ( cf. Matter of Sesto v. Mielke, 28 Misc.2d 228, 229-230, 212 N.Y.S.2d 866). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the Assessor's denial of the petitioners' request for approval of......
-
In The Matter Of Jeffrey J. Ignaczak v. Ryan, 2010-00925
...that the petitioners apply for an abandonment of the Street or postdated the Assessor's October 2008 determination (cf. Matter of Sesto v Mielke, 28 Misc 2d 228, 229-230). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the Assessor's denial of the petitioners' request for approval o......