In re City of New York

78 A.D. 87
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1903·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

O’Brien, J.:

This proceeding was instituted for the acquisition by the city of New York of lands to form a part of East Two Hundred and Thirty-eighth street. Commissioners of estimate and assessment were duly appointed and", upon their motion for taxation of costs, charges and assessments, they filed affidavits stating the number of meetings attended by them, wherefrom it would appear that Commissioner Clancy had been present at fifty meetings, payment for which at the rate fixed by law would be $332; Commissioner Carleton, at forty-four meetings, amounting to $292; Commissioner Windolph, forty meetings, amounting to $264; Commissioner Kir wan, four meetings, amounting to $24, and Commissioner Hoffman, two meetings, amounting to $12. The corporation counsel acquiesced in the payment of the amounts stated by the two commissioners last named, who resigned during the progress of the work, but took exception to the amounts claimed by the other commissioners, concluding from the record of the meetings held and the work performed that such sums were excessive and that Commissioner Clancy should be credited with but thirty-one meetings, Commissioner Carleton with seventeen and Commissioner Windolph with [89]*89seventeen meetings, amounting respectively to $154, $126 and $126. The court, upon the affidavits of the commissioners, the certificate of the corporation counsel and the minutes of the proceeding, granted the motion of the commissioners, and from the order so entered the city has appealed.

In view of the rule laid down by Mr. Justice Hatch in Matter of City of New York (77 App. Div. 433) it is unnecessary to restate what must appear in order that claims of commissioners in such proceedings may be sustained. It will not do to have the expense of the proceedings unduly increased, and while the court should in no parsimonious spirit deal with the question of payment for the work performed and the amount to be awarded, at the same time it is bound to keep in mind that the statute in accordance with which compensation is to be determined has prescribed that the fees are to be paid only for days that are “ actually and necessarily ” employed in the work of the commission. It follows that the court cannot sanction an award unless it is able to see from the proof submitted that the sums claimed are properly due.

The present record contains more information as to the nature of the work of the commissioners at the meetings held than has been afforded in other appeals; but even here, in some instances, the minutes are entirely too meagre to show either that the work alleged to have been performed was necessarily called for or that the commissioners were actually engaged at such times in the work for which they were appointed. It should not be difficult, where proper business of the commission is duly performed, to show that fact, and the bare statement that a meeting was held and commissioners were present is insufficient to show that the meeting was one for which compensation is due. In such cases, therefore, no allowance should be made. On the other hand, it is proper for the commissioners to fix dates for as many stated meetings as may be required to dispatch the business in hand, and where such meeting has been called and a commissioner attends ready to proceed and by the absence of the other commissioners and the want of a quorum is prevented through no fault of his from performing his duties, an allowance should be made to him because in attending he has been obliged to arrange his other duties with a view to such meeting, and it seems but right that he should be compensated. So, too, with [90]*90respect to adjournments granted for good cause shown either by the corporation counsel or the property owners the commissioners present should be credited with the meeting because having attended and been ready to proceed, they have, without fault on their part, lost the time consumed in going to and from the place of meeting, and where the adjournment .is reasonable and justifiable and the proof so shows, they should be paid for their attendance.

The further question is presented, whether credit should be given a commissioner for meetings which the record does not show that he attended beyond the statement on a subsequent date that he then said he was present at the session. The commissioners have control over the minutes of their meetings, and such minutes unless shown to be incorrect should be held as to them conclusive. Hereafter we shall adhere to this rule; but in the present proceeding, the commissioners not having had it called to their attention, we shall not apply it strictly, and for meetings the minutes of which do not show the attendance of a particular commissioner, we shall be governed by the statement of such commissioner made on the minutes of a subsequent meeting that he had been present. In the instances, however, where the minutes show that the commissioner could not have been present or that he arrived after the adjournment, no fee will be allowed him.

Nor is credit to he given to the commissioners in every instance where the record merely states that an executive session ” was held. The more numerous of the meetings for which charge is here claimed, as shown by the respondents’ tabulation of the meetings, were the so-called r£ executive sessions,” and the holding of such meetings is a course resorted to in a number of these proceedings brought to our attention, which serves no purpose, so far as appears, except to unduly increase the cost of the proceedings. ' That executive sessions may be necessary and that the commissioners have a right to attend them and charge therefor, we grant; but where the number is out of all proportion to the questions or area of land involved, they cannot be sanctioned nor can charges therefor be sustained. And we think that the mere statement that an “ executive session ” was held is an insufficient showing of its nature and necessity. This is not a compliance with section 998 of the Greater New York charter (as amd. by laws of 1901, chap. 466), which [91]*91provides: * * * Upon such taxation, due proof of the nature and extent of the services rendered and disbursements charged shall be furnished and no unnecessary cost or charges shall be allowed.”

Herein it appears, as stated by the corporation counsel, that Six parcels of land were acquired in this proceeding equalling in area slightly over ten city lots. These parcels were all streets in use for which nominal awards of $1 each weré made. There were no claims presented to the commissioners for damages for the taking of these parcels, only one expert was examined, and the proceeding was entirely expcvrte, at least so far as the awards are concerned. * * * The total number of pages of testimony is twenty-one.”

Keeping in mind, therefore, the nature and extent of the work in hand and the principles above stated as to the payment of compensation to these commissioners, we have examined the entire record, and our conclusions as to the meetings for which each of the commissioners should be paid may be stated by taking up the different periods of time and class of meetings for which compensation is claimed, as presented in the table compiled by the respondents. That table is in the following form:

[92]*92The meetings on qualification and organization we allow.

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

In re City of New York, 78 A.D. 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

78 A.D. 87 (In re City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Muth
139 Misc. 180 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)