In re Acquiring Title by the City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Acquiring Title by the City of New York

253 A.D. 842, 1 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8869

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 28, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 842 (In re Acquiring Title by the City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Acquiring Title by the City of New York, 253 A.D. 842, 1 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

In eondemnation proceedings for the opening and widening of streets in the vicinity of Triborough Bridge, the appellant filed objections to the tentative decree and a hearing was had. The claimant alleged that there were extensive and consequential damages to its land not taken, for the reason [843]*843that no access was given therefrom to the paved part of the street. The determination of the court, the concessions of the corporation counsel in his brief and the concessions made on the argument by the assistant corporation counsel are conclusive that the owner had a vested right and easement of access, from a frontage of fifty feet on its property, across a strip of about thirty-eight feet intervening before the paved part of the street was reached; and it was also conceded on the argument that as to the property abutting on the parkway or proposed parkway, the owner was entitled to reasonable access to the street thereon. We aecepy this as a basis of determining the rights of the owner. Final decree, in so far as an appeal is taken therefrom, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present— Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

In eondemnation proceedings for the opening and widening of streets in the vicinity of Triborough Bridge, the appellant filed objections to the tentative decree and a hearing was had. The claimant alleged that there were extensive and consequential damages to its land not taken, for the reason [843]*843that no access was given therefrom to the paved part of the street. The determination of the court, the concessions of the corporation counsel in his brief and the concessions made on the argument by the assistant corporation counsel are conclusive that the owner had a vested right and easement of access, from a frontage of fifty feet on its property, across a strip of about thirty-eight feet intervening before the paved part of the street was reached; and it was also conceded on the argument that as to the property abutting on the parkway or proposed parkway, the owner was entitled to reasonable access to the street thereon. We aecepy this as a basis of determining the rights of the owner. Final decree, in so far as an appeal is taken therefrom, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present— Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 842, 1 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-acquiring-title-by-the-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1938.