Matter of Mayor, Etc., of New York

60 N.E. 180, 166 N.Y. 495, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 1298
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 16, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 N.E. 180 (Matter of Mayor, Etc., of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Mayor, Etc., of New York, 60 N.E. 180, 166 N.Y. 495, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 1298 (N.Y. 1901).

Opinion

Bartlett, J.

This appeal is taken by permission of the Appellate Division; two questions are certified.

The petitioners are the owners of certain premises on the easterly side of Monroe avenue, between 181st and 182nd streets, in the city of New York. The claim of the petitioners is that Monroe avenue, between 181st street and a point north of their premises, has been discontinued and closed by the city and a new street known as Morris avenue has been laid out a short distance west thereof. The title to Morris * avenue as newly laid out vested in the city of New York on November 29th, 1897.

On the 9th day of June, 1899, the respondents presented to the comptroller of the city of New York a claim in writing for damages sustained by reason of the closing and discontinuance of Monroe avenue pursuant to the provisions of' chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895. Thereafter, and on the *499 28th day of July, 1899, the petitioners served a notice of motion for an order directing the commissioners of estimate to ascertain the compensation which should be made to them for their damages in the premises, and providing that an award for said loss and damages be fixed by the commissioners and included in their report pursuant to the provisions of section fourteen of the act of 1895.

This motion was opposed by the city of Mew York upon the ground that Monroe avenue had not been closed and discontinued within the meaning of the act of 1895.

The Special Term denied the petitioners’ motion and on appeal the Appellate Division reversed the order and granted the motion of petitioners. Thereafter, the city moved for leave to appeal to this court, which was granted, and stated that the following questions have arisen in .this proceeding, which are certified to the Court of Appeals for review and determination, as follows:

1. Did the making and filing of the maps of section fourteen of the final maps of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards by the local authorities of the city of Mew York on December 17th, 1895, operate to discontinue and close Morris avenue (pormerly known as Monroe avenue, or Avenue A) in front of the petitioners’ premises under and in pursuance of chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895 ?
2. Was the said Morris avenue in front of the petitioners’ premises not shown on said final map of section fourteen of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards, so that the same ceases to be and remain a street and avenue within the provisions of said chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895 \

This proceeding involves a somewhat complicated question under a number of statutes, but the points raised are quite simple when the legislation bearing on the subject is chronologically considered. This legislation refers to the twenty-third and twenty-fourth wards in the city of Mew York, which is a district lying north of the Harlem river, and when consolidated with the city of Mew York was composed of a number of small villages, such as Morrisania, Ford ham, West *500 Farms, etc., and the street system then existing was mainly the result of dedication by the filing of maps by private citizens having farm lands to divide up and sell. After the annexation the increase of population was very rapid and the necessity for a uniform street system became pressing.

Chapter 545 of the Laws of 1890 was an act providing for the election of a commissioner of street improvements in these two wards, and transferred to him certain powers that were then possessed by the department of public parks of the city. This commissioner was granted the exclusive power to locate and lay out, construct and maintain all streets, roads, avenues and public squares and places, and to devise plans for and locate all bridges and tunnels, and also sewers spid drainage facilities; fixing the grades and widths of streets and avenues. The commissioner was required, within two years and six months from January 1st, 1891, to complete surveys, maps, plans and profiles of all streets, roads, avenues, public squares and places located and laid out or hereafter to be located and laid out in said territory, showing location, widths, grades, etc. The time in which to file maps was extended so as to include the period involved in this litigation.

The act further provided that when the maps, plans and profiles were so filed they were not to be subject to any further change or modification, but should be final and conclusive as to the city and all persons whomsoever.

Under this authority the commissioner ¡Droceeded to divide the district into twenty-eight sections and to make and file plans and profiles thereof, most of which were filed after June 12th, 1895, which was the date when chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895 took effect.

The act of 1895 is entitled “ An act to provide for discontinuing and closing streets, avenues, roads, highways, alleys, lanes and thoroughfares in cities of more than one million two hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants,” and provides for the closing of streets in New York city, the consequent readjustment of the land titles caused thereby, and an estimate of damages incidental thereto.

*501 This act has been before us in a proceeding wherein its constitutionality was challenged. In the case of Matter of Mayor, etc., of N. Y. (157 N. Y. 409) we held that its provisions were within the constitutional powers of the legislature, and Judge IIaight, writing for the court, said : It is doubtless true that some of the provisions of the act pertaining to the acquiring of the fee and easements in discontinued streets, if they stood alone, might be construed as authorizing the taking of property for a private use, but when these provisions are considered in connection with the other provisions of the act, we find that they all aim at one object, and that is the laying out and opening of the streets and avenues of a city according to a plan adopted. Confessedly, this is for a public purpose, and we think that the acquiring of the fee and easements in the old roadways which are discontinued should be treated as incident and necessary to carry out the public improvement authorized by the provisions of the act.” The opinion of the court was brief and adopted the opinion of Mr. Justice Pattersoh in the court below (28 App. Div. 143).

For the purposes of this case it is unnecessary to examine in detail the lengthy provisions of the act of 1895, which were fully considered by Mr. Justice Pattersoh.

The second and fourteenth sections of this act are specially involved at the present time.

The act of 1890 provided no scheme for the closing of old streets, but was a legislative plan to lay out a system of streets in the city of New York in the two great wards lying north of the Harlem river. The legislation of 1895 was evidently designed to supplement the law of 1890, and both of these acts must be read together in order to understand the general scheme for the laying out and opening of new streets and discontinuing the old streets that interfered with the consummation of that plan. More than eight hundred streets and sections of streets were shown on these maps as finally filed to be discontinued and closed.

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

Related

In re City of New York
145 A.D. 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
In re the Mayor, Aldermen & Commonalty
131 A.D. 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 N.E. 180, 166 N.Y. 495, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mayor-etc-of-new-york-ny-1901.