In re the City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Separate appeals by the petitioners, Uriah Harris and others, from eight orders, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of August, 1915, as amended and resettled each by a further order entered in said clerk’s office on the 4th day of November, 1915. Each of these orders denied a motion by one of the petitioners, made pursuant to the provisions of section 14 of chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895, for…
Read the full summary
Separate appeals by the petitioners, Uriah Harris and others, from eight orders, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of August, 1915, as amended and resettled each by a further order entered in said clerk’s office on the 4th day of November, 1915. Each of these orders denied a motion by one of the petitioners, made pursuant to the provisions of section 14 of chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895, for an order directing the commissioners of estimate in this proceeding to ascertain and to report the compensation which…
1Dissent
Page, J. (dissenting):
For the reason given in this same matter (Matter of City of New York [Newton Ave.], In re Van Cortlandt, 173 App. Div. 32) the order in this case should be reversed and the motion granted.
The easements, for the taking of which compensation was sought in this proceeding, were not taken by the city until August 1, 1914, at which time the petitioners were vested with the title. These easements arise out of the contiguity of the property to the public street, and not out of any grant by the former owner. When the former owner conveyed the property it abutted upon a street…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re the City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916