Gaynor v. Village of Port Chester

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Rich, Putnam and Jaycox, JJ., concurred; Blackmar, J., dissented upon the ground that the learning of Wakefield v. Brophy ( 67 Misc. Rep. 298 ; affd., sub nom. Wakefield v. Gaynor, 144 App. Div. 905 ; affd., 207 N. Y. 772 ) does not apply, inasmuch as the express statute^[1] has declared the claim is for a village purpose; with whom Jenks, P. J., concurred.