From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradford v. County of Suffolk

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 24, 1940
28 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 1940)

Opinion

Argued May 29, 1940

Decided July 24, 1940

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, STEINBRINK, J.

M.E. Harby and Frederick W. Bickmann, Jr., for appellants.

Ralph Stout, Harry S. Austin and Edgar F. Hazleton for respondent.


This action was one for a judgment declaring two resolutions of the Board of Supervisors of Suffolk county and three ensuing items of a tax warrant to be unlawful and void for want of statutory authorization thereof. Special Term granted such a judgment. Pending an appeal by the defendant to the Appellate Division, the Legislature, by chapter 572 of the Laws of 1939, declared that the contested resolution of October 26, 1936, was as of the times in issue "legalized and validated, notwithstanding any defect, irregularity or omission therein * * * or in the lack of statutory authority therefor." The Appellate Division was bound to give effect to this curative statute ( People ex rel. Clark v. Gilchrist, 243 N.Y. 173, 180) which interdicted the declaratory judgment granted by Special Term. Since no other relief was sought by plaintiffs, the complaint should have been dismissed by the Appellate Division.

Whether the curative statute was, as plaintiffs claim, an attempt retroactively to confirm taxation is a question that need not be considered. (See Lennon v. Mayor, 55 N.Y. 361.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified so as to direct only that the complaint be dismissed on the law and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, FINCH, RIPPEY, SEARS, LEWIS and CONWAY, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Bradford v. County of Suffolk

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 24, 1940
28 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 1940)
Case details for

Bradford v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM J. BRADFORD et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 24, 1940

Citations

28 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 1940)
28 N.E.2d 932

Citing Cases

Zinder v. Bd. of Assessors

In any event, it has been clearly held that: "A declaratory judgment action is preferred where the legality…

Standard Brewing Co. v. Peachey

(Newburger v. Lubell, 257 N.Y. 383.) Where a genuine controversy exists, the courts have never held that…