People Ex Rel. City of New York v. Belt Line Railway Corp.

129 N.E. 217, 230 N.Y. 86, 1920 N.Y. LEXIS 560
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 23, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 N.E. 217 (People Ex Rel. City of New York v. Belt Line Railway Corp.) 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
People Ex Rel. City of New York v. Belt Line Railway Corp., 129 N.E. 217, 230 N.Y. 86, 1920 N.Y. LEXIS 560 (N.Y. 1920).

Opinion

Cbane, J.

Prior to the ninth day of February, 1917, the president of the borough of Manhattan requested the board of estimate and apportionment to appropriate sufficient funds for repaving certain streets in the borough of Manhattan, among which was Fifty-ninth street between Fifth and Eighth avenues. The board of estimate thereupon, by resolution adopted on said date and also on March 7, 1919, duly authorized an expenditure of the necessary funds for that purpose. Thereafter the borough president caused to be prepared the necessary plans for repaving said West Fifty-ninth street with asphalt on a concrete foundation which plans were duly approved by the chief engineer of his office and the commissioner of public works acting as borough president.

These plans provide for the repaving at a surface grade level or crown which will, in places, be higher (in some places as much as two and one-half inches) than the tram rails of the north track of the street surface railroad owned, maintained and operated by the Belt Line Railway Corporation through the portion of Fifty-ninth street mentioned.

In July of 1919 the Belt Line Railway Corporation was notified in writing of this improvement and directed to conform its rails to the crowns and grades of the new surface in accordance with the plans and specifications on file in the office of the commissioner of public works at the Municipal Building. The railway corporation, through *90 its president, in reply to this notice stated that it stood upon its rights and declined to change its rails as requested.

In the event that the city of New York repaves said West Fifty-ninth street between the avenues stated without the tram, rails of the north track of the Belt Line Railway Corporation having been made to conform to the surface grade level or crown of the street, the pavement upon the completion of the work will, in numerous places, be inches higher than the surface of said tram rails and as a consequence thereof depressions and traps will exist in the street.

Upon the refusal of the railway corporation to comply with the request of the city, an application was made to the Supreme Court upon a petition setting forth all these facts for an order directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus be issued commanding the said railway corporation to forthwith and at its own expense repair and construct the surface rails so as to conform to the crown of the street as it will be after the repaving improvement.

The material facts not being disputed, the application was granted by the Speer 1 Term, but upon appeal the Appellate Division, one justice dissenting, reversed the Special Term and denied the motion.

The city claims that the railway corporation was obliged to do the work demanded, pursuant to section 178 of the Railroad Law (Consolidated Laws, chapter 49), which reads as follows: “Every street surface railroad corporation, so long as it shall continue to use or maintain any of its tracks in any street, avenue or public place in any city or village, shall have and keep in permanent repair that portion of such street, avenue or public place between its tracks, the rails of its tracks, and two feet in width outside of its tracks, under the supervision of the proper local authorities, and whenever required by them to do so, and in such manner as they may prescribe. * *

Recognizing that the streets of the city need constant *91 attention and repair and sometimes change from one kind of pavement to another, thereby necessitating changes in the crown or surface, height or slant of the street, the Greater New York charter in section 383 gave to the president of the borough certain powers and in the following language: The president of a borough * * * shall, within the borough for which he shall have been elected, have cognizance and control: (1) of regulating, grading, curbing, flagging and guttering of streets and laying of cross walks; (2) of constructing and repairing public roads; (3) of paving, repaving, resurfacing and repairing of all streets, and of the relaying of all pavements removed for any cause; (4) of the laying or relaying of surface railroad tracks in any public street or road, of the form of rail used, or character of foundation, and the method of construction, and of the restoration of the pavement or surface after such work; * *

The paving of Fifty-ninth street w:th the slight changes in the contour of the surface of the street was not such a change of grade as required action by and through the board of estimate and apportionment pursuant to section 442 of the Greater New York charter. It was essentially a repaving proposition at an existing and established grade, the surface at some points being a few inches higher than had theretofore existed owing to the nature of the pavement and the. shape and form which the surface for engineering purposes was to take.

Neither was it a relocation of tracks within the meaning of People ex rel. City of Olean v. W. N. Y. & P. T. Company (214 N. Y. 526, 529); People ex rel. City of New York v. New York Railways Company (217 N. Y. 310) nor City of New York v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company (229 N. Y. 141). In the City of Olean ease it was said: “ The power to change the grade of a street may fairly be said to involve the power to compel a street railroad to lower or raise its tracks to conform to the new grade; but the power to require a relocation of the tracks *92 does not appear to be necessary to the'exercise of the power to alter and improve streets.”

If the grade of Fifty-ninth street had been changed under the charter provisions this respondent would have been compelled to make its tracks conform to the new grade — it would not have been a relocation; so here, the above charter provisions give to the city authorities power to recrown a street on improvement and to force a street railroad to meet the new level.

The contention on behalf of the respondent is that it is the owner of the property and franchises formerly belonging to the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company which was incorporated under chapter 140 of the Laws of 1850 and acquired all the rights and franchises granted to individuals under chapter 511 of the Laws of 1860. These enactments authorized the construction and operation of a street railroad in Fifty-ninth street between First and Tenth avenues. In 1897 the board of railroad commissioners on the application of the Central Park, North and East River Railroad Company authorized the converting of the then horse railroad on Fifty-ninth street to an electric railroad operated by an underground current of electricity. By agreement with the commissioner of highways of the city of New York, as required by the certificate of the board of railroad commissioners consenting to the change of motive power, the electric track was constructed in Fifty-ninth street on the lines and grades approved and prescribed by the said commissioner and which have, down to the present day, been maintained and kept at that fixed grade.

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

Related

Earl Carroll Realty Corp. v. New York Edison Co.
141 Misc. 266 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
People Ex Rel. City of New York v. Belt Line Railway Corp.
130 N.E. 905 (New York Court of Appeals, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 N.E. 217, 230 N.Y. 86, 1920 N.Y. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-city-of-new-york-v-belt-line-railway-corp-ny-1920.