Andrews v. State

10 Misc. 2d 501, 172 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1915
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 21, 1957
DocketClaim No. 34211
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Misc. 2d 501 (Andrews v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Andrews v. State, 10 Misc. 2d 501, 172 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1915 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Opinion

Charles Lambiase, J.

This is an application by the claimants:

[502]*502“ for an order requiring the State of New York through its appropriate officers, agents or employees to submit to an examination before trial by the claimants herein, such examination to be upon the following matter, to wit:
“ (1) To prove that the State of New York appropriated for temporary use prior to the permanent appropriation all of the lands which were ultimately permanently appropriated and to show the nature and extent of such temporary appropriation;
“ (2) To prove that both the permanent appropriation and the temporary appropriation were made in connection with the production of power under the statute and not for the improvement of navigation, and to prove that the uses and purposes to which said land has been and will in the future be devoted is not for the improvement of navigation but for the purpose of producing water power, and to prove that the State of New York through its Power Authority has determined to devote the use of the property, so taken, to the production and sale of water and electric power; and
“You Will Please Further Take Notice that at said time and place the undersigned will move to compel the State of New York to produce upon such examination the records, papers, maps, plans and other documents in its possession or under its control which will tend to prove the facts sought to be proved on such examination, as aforesaid; and * * *
‘" will also move for such other, further and different relief in the premises as may be just and equitable ”.

The State of New York resists the granting of the relief herein asked for.

The claim is made “ (1) for the permanent appropriation of land by the State of New York through the Power Authority of the State of New York, acquired in the name of The People of the State of New York for the Improvement and Development of the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River, pursuant to Section 30 of the Highway Law as made applicable by Article 5, Title 1, of the Public Authorities Law; and (2) for the temporary easement on and over said land by the same Authority and for the same purposes and under the same statutes.”

While the State is not required to answer a claim and all allegations in the claim are treated as denied (Court of Claims Rules, rule 13), it is a matter of public record and it is not disputed that the appropriation of claimants’ property herein was effected by the State of New York as alleged in paragraph 2 of claimants’ claim.

[503]*503Section 288 of the Civil Practice Act expressly requires that the proposed examination of a party, an original owner of the claim, or of any other person shall be material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of the action in which the deposition is sought. In respect to parties and original owners of claims, this is the sole statutory requirement. The word “necessary” as used in the foregoing section has been held to mean “needful” and not “indispensable”. (Terry v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co., 180 App. Div. 714.)

It is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court to permit an examination of a party before trial, when material and necessary, irrespective of who has the affirmative, although, as a general rule, governing the exercise of discretion, the court will deny the application, unless the testimony be necessary to prove the claim or an affirmative defense. (Public Nat. Bank of N. Y. v. National City Bank of N. Y., 261 N. Y. 316.) And when an examination is sought after the joinder of issue, it will usually be limited to the matters in issue. (Burrows v. Magnetic Analysis Corp., 231 App. Div. 619.)

The preamble or “Declaration of policy” contained in the Power Authority Act (L. 1931, ch. 772; L. 1939, ch. 870, as amd. by L. 1951, ch. 146; L. 1954, ch. 822; L. 1955, ch. 865) provides as follows (Public Authorities Law, § 1001): “Those parts of the Niagara and Saint Lawrence rivers within the boundaries of the State of New York are hereby declared to be natural resources of the state for the use and development of commerce and navigation in the interest of the people of this state and the United States. In order to provide for the most beneficial use of these natural resources, for the creation and development of hydroelectric power in the interest of the people of the state, and to preserve and enhance the scenic beauty of the Niagara Falls and river, such natural resources, including the beds and waters of the said rivers as instrumentalities of commerce and navigation, and the beds, waters, power and power sites in, upon or adjacent to or within the watersheds of the said rivers, owned or controlled by the people of the state, or which may hereafter be recovered by or come within their ownership, possession and control, shall always remain inalienable to, and ownership, possession and control thereof shall always be vested in, the people of the state.” (As amd. by L. 1951, ch. 146, § 1, eff. March 20, 1951.)

Section 1002 of the same law provides:

“For the purpose of effectuating the policy declared in section one thousand one of this chapter and of improving the Niagara and Saint Lawrence rivers as instrumentalities of com[504]*504merce and navigation and developing the hydro-electric power resources thereof, there is hereby created a corporate municipal instrumentality of the state to be known as Power Authority of the State of New York hereinafter in this title referred to as the authority, which shall be a body corporate and politic, a political subdivision of the state, exercising governmental and public powers, perpetual in duration, capable of suing and being sued, and having a seal, and which shall have the powers and duties hereinafter enumerated, together with such others as may hereafter be conferred upon it by law.
‘ ‘ It shall report annually to the governor and the legislature upon its operations and transactions.” (As amd. by L. 1951, ch. 146, § 2, eff. March 20, 1951.) The foregoing objectives are repeated in consistent broad language and in the grant of powers specified in the later sections of the act. For a detailed discussion of the objectives and purposes of the Power Authority of the State of New York see Cuglar v. Power Auth. of State of N. Y. (four cases) (4 Misc 2d 879, affd. 4 AD 2d 801)
There is no allegation in the claim that the appropriation was for other than such enumerated objectives and purposes. In fact, it is alleged in the claim as hereinbefore noted that the appropriation was ‘ ‘ for the Improvement and Development of the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River, pursuant to Section 30 of the Highway Law as made applicable by Article 5, Title 1, of the Public Authorities Law ”. We may note at this point that section 30 of the Highway Law provides the mechanics of land acquisition such as the preparation of descriptions and maps, filing with the Department of Public Works and the Department of State and in the office of the appropriate County Clerk of each county, upon completion of which ‘ ‘ the appropriation by the state of the property described * * * shall be deemed complete and the title to such property shall be vested”. (Subd. 6.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carpinelli v. Manhattan Bottling Corp.
21 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Misc. 2d 501, 172 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-state-nyclaimsct-1957.