In re City of New York

195 Misc. 842, 82 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3021
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 20, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 195 Misc. 842 (In re City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re City of New York, 195 Misc. 842, 82 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3021 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Opinion

Hammer, J.

The property which is the subject of this proceeding constitutes a wide strip of land extending from the westerly [845]*845side of Westchester Creek in the easterly Bronx to the east bank of the Harlem River in the west Bronx. The land has been acquired to provide a cross-borough express highway which will facilitate access not only between the approaches to the Greorge Washington Bridge on the westerly end and Whitestone Bridge on the easterly end, but also between this new highway and existing and proposed streets and highways bearing the north and south traffic through The Bronx. The magnitude of such a project is obvious, considered alone, but when considered in connection with existing improvements such as Henry Hudson Parkway, Sawmill River Parkway, Bronx River Parkway, Hutchinson River Parkway, Major Deegan Expressway, Bruckner Boulevard and the proposed improvement of the former and also the proposed Boston Road and New England Expressways, the vast design of the overall plan becomes apparent. These improvements will change, to a considerable degree, the highway and street plan of the borough, directly, and indirectly the improvement will be beneficial throughout the metropolitan area. Integrated as they will be into the comprehensive scheme for the entire city a tremendous acceleration in the movement of vehicular traffic should be accomplished. The need therefor has been demonstrated more and more to be necessary by the seemingly endless demands brought about by ever-increasing numbers of commercial, pleasure and other vehicles using the streets, boulevards, parkways and other arteries of transportation in this great metropolitan area. Over these great modern highways and through the gateways of the city’s bridges and tunnels much of this ever-increasing flow of vehicular traffic will pass to and from other magnificent systems of State, National and international highways, and every agricultural, industrial, commercial, political and recreational center of the United States, Canada, Alaska and Mexico, will be brought into more and more intimate automotive, contact with the city of New York. Wisdom, vision and courage of the highest order in road planning and building, as well as in civic enterprise are indeed required to meet the challenge of this city’s future greatness.

The land taken for this Cross-Bronx Expressway has been divided into three sections. The most easterly section, running from the west side of Westchester Creek to Longfellow Avenue, has been designated section 3. Title to this portion vested in the city by order of this court, made March 15,1946, by the late Mr. Justice McLaughlin. Some delay ensued, due to his illness and lamented death.

[846]*846Thereafter, the trial was had as soon as the regular assignments and other additional condemnation assignments of the present Trial Justice permitted. Damage parcels 511 to 967 are in the third section. The route of the expressway in this section follows closely the bed of East 177th Street. This street diagonally crosses the avenues in this part of The Bronx, with the result that there are many unusually shaped parcels and consequent numerous partial takings. A preliminary analysis of the situation made in connection with the viewing of the property, as required by the statute, disclosed that the trial would be greatly facilitated by dividing this section into two parts. This was done and the dividing line located at Hugh J. Grant Circle. That part lying east thereof was set down for trial on April 19, 1948, and the part west thereof for June 21, 1948. Aside from some minor matters the trial of the easterly portion of this section required ten court days, on many of which the sessions continued into the evenings, so that the trial could be completed before the commencement of the May term of this court, at which the Trial Justice had another calendar assignment. Briefs were received on or about June 8,1948, and immediately thereafter the fixation of values undertaken. In the meantime, from June 21st through July 2d, the second part of the third section was tried.

In order to facilitate consideration and decision the present Trial Justice has devised a chart of appraisal items deemed appropriate to or necessary in every known claim, excepting, of course, such as might be extraordinarily unique. The claimants and the city were required to furnish the data. Obviously, all items were not required for every claim. Unimproved property had relation only to a few. But time has been saved and the labor of the court has been lightened by the use of the chart and its data and by the helpful co-operation of counsel in its acceptance and use. Because of this reference to such chart in the interest of clarity a copy will be appended to this decision.

In view of the magnitude of this proceeding, involving this most important new artery of transportation, running completely through the borough of The Bronx from east to west from Whitestone Bridge to George Washington Bridge and the vast territory to which they lead, and being mindful of the number and variety of the properties taken and the complex factual and legal problems presented, it is deemed necessary to state some observations and rules which constitute applicable and timely guides in consideration and decision.

[847]*847The owner of private property taken for a public purpose under eminent domain is entitled to just compensation judicially determined. Just compensation is an award of money for the value of the property as of the time of taking to indemnify the owner for the loss. As the taking of real property is involved, the ordinary rules of compensation are applicable, but qualified by the additional element of market value. While in some jurisdictions the value to the taker is considered as an element and reflected in the sum which must be determined, the rule in New York allows only the fair market value.10 In damage or injury there is a wrongdoer, but the property may be retained by the owner or the wrongdoer may receive no benefit. In condemnation the taker legally and completely deprives the owner of both the property or interest, and its use or enjoyment, and appropriates same for the taker’s use. There is also a class of injury in the public interest under police power involving partial or complete destruction from which no damage ensues. Eminent domain takes property for a necessary public use. The police power regulates the use of property or restricts rights in property when the free use or unrestricted exercise of such rights is detrimental to public interest.2

A partial taking under condemnation of an owner’s real property, leaving the remaining land damaged by serious impairment to its value due to the taking and the resultant size, shape, or serious sales impairment of the portion left, may be said to be an exception to the constitutional requirement of compensation only for the value of the property taken.

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

Related

In re Arverne Second Amended Urban Renewal Project
44 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Morris Seigel Realty v. Comm'r of Transp., No. 337240 (Mar. 24, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 2828 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Cunningham Natural Gas Corp.
145 Misc. 2d 825 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
Killip Laundering Co. v. State
32 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)
Fullington v. M. Penn Phillips Co.
395 P.2d 124 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1964)
Territory of Hawaii Ex Rel. Sharpless v. Arneson
354 P.2d 981 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1960)
Mitchell v. State
20 Misc. 2d 374 (New York State Court of Claims, 1960)
Tinnerholm v. State
15 Misc. 2d 311 (New York State Court of Claims, 1958)
County of McLennan v. Shinault
302 S.W.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1957)
Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. v. Schwartz
206 Misc. 437 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Goodman v. Yawkey
101 F. Supp. 769 (D. Massachusetts, 1952)
Mchale v. State
198 Misc. 387 (New York State Court of Claims, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 Misc. 842, 82 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1948.