Red Apple Rest, Inc. v. McMorran

New York Court of Appeals

Red Apple Rest, Inc. v. McMorran

188 N.E.2d 137, 12 N.Y.2d 203, 237 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1426

DecidedJanuary 23, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 188 N.E.2d 137 (Red Apple Rest, Inc. v. McMorran) 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

Red Apple Rest, Inc. v. McMorran, 188 N.E.2d 137, 12 N.Y.2d 203, 237 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1426 (N.Y. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case, it is argued by appellants, by permission and upon an agreed statement of facts, that the State, acting through the Superintendent of Public Works, was not authorized to erect guardrails in front of a portion of appellants’ premises which abut upon a State highway, known as Route 17, in the vicinity of Southfields, Orange County, Few York. We think, to the contrary, that under the Highway Law, and under the police power, and to effectuate a reasonably safe channelling of traffic, the State had a right to erect upon the property appropriated the guardrails in question. The guardrails, as erected, did not create a nonaccess highway or bar access to the premises in question but left ample room for ingress and egress.

While the issue raised herein might have been reached by a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the Appellate Division nevertheless had jurisdiction to entertain the issue raised in such a submission.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vooriiis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

In this case, it is argued by appellants, by permission and upon an agreed statement of facts, that the State, acting through the Superintendent of Public Works, was not authorized to erect guardrails in front of a portion of appellants’ premises which abut upon a State highway, known as Route 17, in the vicinity of Southfields, Orange County, Few York. We think, to the contrary, that under the Highway Law, and under the police power, and to effectuate a reasonably safe channelling of traffic, the State had a right to erect upon the property appropriated the guardrails in question. The guardrails, as erected, did not create a nonaccess highway or bar access to the premises in question but left ample room for ingress and egress.

While the issue raised herein might have been reached by a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the Appellate Division nevertheless had jurisdiction to entertain the issue raised in such a submission.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vooriiis, Burke, Foster and Scileppi concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 N.E.2d 137, 12 N.Y.2d 203, 237 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/red-apple-rest-inc-v-mcmorran-ny-1963.