This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

New York City (D) entered into a contract to construct a sewage system in 1924. All construction costs and subsequent costs of operations were to be borne by D. The agreement also required D to extend the sewer lines when necessitated by future growth and building constructions of the respective communities. After 50 years, the plant was operating at maximum capacity; there was no dispute over this fact. Haines (P) sought approval to develop his land into a subdivision. D refused because of the inadequate sewage plant capacity. P sued; D's obligation under the contract was perpetual, and D was obligated to construct additional plants if required. P sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Both the trial court and Appellate Division held for P; while the contract was not perpetual in duration, D was bound to construct additional facilities to meet increased demand until such time as the village or town was legally obligated to maintain a sewage disposal system. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.