Matter of Underwood v. . O'Brien
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 11, 1923, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the corporation counsel of the city of New York to institute proceedings to ascertain the compensation due to the petitioners by reason of the closing of a portion of West One Hundred and Seventy-seventh street in the borough of…
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 11, 1923, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the corporation counsel of the city of New York to institute proceedings to ascertain the compensation due to the petitioners by reason of the closing of a portion of West One Hundred and Seventy-seventh street in the borough of Manhattan.
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
We are once more called upon to interpret the Street Closing Act of 1895. It is alleged in the petition and not denied that.West One Hundred and Seventy-seventh street in the city of New York was laid out as a permanent street sixty feet wide upon the map or plan duly prepared and filed by the local authorities. It ran easterly from Riverside Drive on a curve sweeping in a semi-circle around premises belonging to the petitioners to Haven avenue. In 1915 the city determined to narrow this street in' part, to close and discontinue its present connection with the drive and straightening the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Haskel v. 60 West 53 St. Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1929