Solkat Realty Corp. v. State

172 Misc. 981, 16 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2591
CourtNew York Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 28, 1939
DocketClaim No. 24578
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 172 Misc. 981 (Solkat Realty Corp. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Solkat Realty Corp. v. State, 172 Misc. 981, 16 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2591 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1939).

Opinion

Ryan, J.

Claimant corporation owned lands abutting on South Geddes street in the city of Syracuse. The property had a frontage [982]*982of 142 feet on the west side of South Geddes street in the block between West Fayette street on the south and Erie boulevard on the north. Within the block and to the south of claimant’s property was the right of way of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western railroad and to the north the right of way of the New York Central. Both of these railroads crossed Geddes street at grade.

In the elimination of these grade crossings the 100-foot width of Geddes street was reduced to fifty feet, consisting of a forty-foot pavement and a five-foot sidewalk on either side. This fifty feet was depressed and carried under the railroad tracks, which had been elevated about four feet. On the remaining fifty feet of the original Geddes street were built concrete retaining walls. On the westerly side a sixteen-foot roadway was constructed extending north from West Fayette street, past claimant’s property, to the New York Central right of way, where it was dead-ended. This roadway is sixteen feet wide from West Fayette street to the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western tracks, which it approaches by a ten and eight-tenths per cent ascending grade. After crossing the tracks the remainder of the roadway is twenty feet wide. The only access •to and from claimant’s property is over this elevated roadway. Claimant no longer has direct access to Geddes street.

The original plan for the elimination of the South Geddes street crossing was adopted by the Syracuse grade crossing commission and was submitted by it to the common council of the city of Syracuse and approved by that body on February 18, 1935. Thereafter the plan was submitted to the Public Service Commission and, after modification, was approved by that body on November 26, 1935. However, the construction work attendant upon the grade crossing elimination was not carried out by the Syracuse grade crossing commission. Instead, it was accomplished under the direction of the State Superintendent of Public Works through a contract which he made with the Walsh Construction Company. The expense was not borne out of money raised for grade crossing eliminations by the State bond issue but was met out of Federal money allocated to the State of New York under the Federal Emergency Appropriation Act of 1935 and received and expended by the State Comptroller pursuant to chapter 934 of the Laws of 1935. Before the Superintendent of Public Works entered into the contract with the Walsh Construction Company the Syracuse grade crossing commission, on March 11, 1936, adopted a resolution reciting in substance that whereas Federal moneys had been allo- ' cated to the city of Syracuse for the elimination of the Geddes street crossing, and whereas plans for carrying out the work had been [983]*983submitted to the Department of Public Works for its approval, and whereas under the provisions of chapters 303, 585, 934 and 935 of the Laws of 1935 and chapter 782 of the Laws of 1933, it is proposed, and the Department of Public Works asserts its rights to advertise for bids, let contracts, supervise the work and pay the cost of the work by its vouchers on the State Comptroller, therefore, in view of the statutes and the provisions of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, it was resolved that the Syracuse commission recognizes the right of the Department of Public Works to eliminate the said Geddes street crossing in accordance with plans hereinbefore prepared by the Syracuse commission and the commission waives its right to do the work in connection with that project, and consents that payment therefor be made by the Comptroller on vouchers of the Department of Public Works. It was further resolved that any and all lands and easement rights required to carry out the project shall be acquired by the Syracuse commission under chapter 825 of the Laws of 1928.

After the completion of the work the same was approved by the Public Service Commission under date of December 7, 1937. The order of approval recited that it appeared from an inspection made by a representative of the engineering division of the commission that the work had been completed substantially in accordance with the Commission’s order and approved plans, and referred to the order of November 26, 1935, which directed the elimination.

However, in the execution of the work the Department of Public Works prepared its own detail plans. There is testimony in the record to the effect that the contract plans were new plans and not merely detailed changes and modifications of the original plans prepared and adopted by the Syracuse grade crossing commission. It seems to us, however, that the plans were substantially as originally prepared and that it was the contemplation of all the agencies and commissions concerned that the work was to be done in accordance with the plan of the Syracuse commission.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court, Onondaga • county, by the Atlantic Refining Company against the Syracuse grade crossing commission and the interested railroads and Frederick Stuart Greene as the State Superintendent of Public Works and the Walsh Construction Company, the plaintiff sought to restrain the Superintendent of Public Works and the contractor from proceeding with this South Geddes street elimination. The Atlantic Refining Company was the owner of the parcel of land situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Geddes and West Fayette streets.

[984]*984The matter came before Mr. Justice Dowling, of the Fifth Judicial District, at Special Term on motion of the defendant Greene, the State Superintendent of Public Works, and the defendant Walsh Construction Company, the contractor, for summary judgment on the pleadings. In granting the motion to dismiss the complaint, the court ruled that the plaintiff had not resorted to the legal remedies available to it and that until it had exhausted them, a court of equity would not entertain jurisdiction. In the memorandum of decision handed down July 9, 1937 (unreported), the court said:

“It is apparent from the provisions of chapter 825, Laws of 1928, chapter 782, Laws of 1933, chapter 303, Laws of 1935, chapter 585, Laws of 1935, chapter 934, Laws of 1935, and chapter 935, Laws of 1935, section 99 of the Second Class Cities Law does not apply in respect to change of grade of streets involved in the elimination of grade crossings in Syracuse. The Syracuse commission is authorized and empowered by chapter 825 of the Laws of 1928 to change the grade of streets whenever necessary. The Syracuse commission’s powers to do so have not been affected by any of the statutes enacted since 1928 by the Legislature of the State of New York. These subsequent statutes empowered the Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York to take over the supervision and management of the grade crossing elimination project in Syracuse in conjunction with the Syracuse commission, and it was in pursuance of this power that the defendant Greene revised the plans of the Syracuse commission relative to the grade of South Geddes and West Fayette streets, adjacent to plaintiff’s property. In changing the plans and letting the contract to do the work, defendant Greene was acting for the State itself. The State had power to impose this duty on the Department of Public Works as a State agency.

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

Related

240 Scott, Inc. v. State of New York
221 N.E.2d 456 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Herzog v. State
32 Misc. 2d 1068 (New York State Court of Claims, 1962)
Counihan v. State
18 Misc. 2d 514 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)
Cook v. State
176 Misc. 947 (New York State Court of Claims, 1941)
Solkat Realty Corp. v. State
262 A.D. 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Solkat Realty Corp. v. State
174 Misc. 808 (New York State Court of Claims, 1940)
Welz & Zerweck v. State
174 Misc. 198 (New York State Court of Claims, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 Misc. 981, 16 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solkat-realty-corp-v-state-nyclaimsct-1939.