Case ID: ny_270/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for Opening and Extending Wooley Avenue in the Borough of Richmond. Loualed Development Company, Inc., Appellant.
    
      (Argued March 3, 1936;
    decided April 14, 1936.)
    
      H. Spencer Bregoff for appellant.
    The conveyances made by appellant did not in any respect burden damage parcel No. 2 with easements of any nature express or implied; nor was there any dedication for street purposes by the appellant of the land in the damage parcel. (Matter of City of New York [East 177th St.], 239 N. Y. 119; City of Cohoes v. D. & H. C. Co., 134 N. Y. 397; N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Village of Ossining, 141 App. Div. 765; 207 N. Y. 648; Lehigh & H. R. R. Co. v. Village of Warwick, 164 App. Div. 55; Lynbrook Homes, Inc., v. Frey, 217 App. Div. 164; Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge Co. v. Bachman, 66 N. Y. 261; Johnson v. City of Niagara Falls, 230 N. Y. 77; Matter of City of New York [Roosevelt Ave.], 186 App. Div. 457; Reis v. City of New York, 188 N. Y. 58; Nichols Copper Co. v. Connolly, 208 App. Div. 667; 240 N. Y. 596; Matter of City of New York [Sedgwick Ave.], 213 N. Y. 438; Lord v. Atkins, 138 N. Y. 184; Matter of Brook Ave., 40 App. Div. 519; 161 N. Y. 622; Matter of Ninety-sixth St., 243 App. Div. 809; Matter of City of New York [Sixty-fourth St.], 183 App. Div. 708; Matter of West 229th St., 135 Misc. Rep. 710; 235 App. Div. 608; Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136.)
    
      Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Lewis Orgel, Paxton Blair and Reuben Levy of counsel), for respondent.
    Sales by the appellant with reference to the map created easements of access over damage parcel No. 2 to the city system of streets. (Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136; Reis v. City of New York, 188 N. Y. 58; Matter of City of New York [East 177th St.], 239 N. Y. 119.) The award represented just compensation. (Matter of Adams, 141 N. Y. 297; Matter of City of New York [Decatur St.], 196 N. Y. 286; Matter of City of New York [Johnson Ave.], 135 App. Div. 630; 198 N. Y. 505; Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136; Matter of City of New York [East 177th St.], 239 N. Y. 119; City of Buffalo v. Pratt, 131 N. Y. 293; Matter of City of New York [Westchester Ave.], 126 App. Div. 839.)
   Per Curiam.

We are not in accord "with the ruling below that private easements were created in damage parcel No. 2 as laid out on the map filed by the appellant’s predecessor m title. The lots conveyed by the appellant with reference to this map front on other streets as shown thereon, do not abut upon damage parcel No. 2, and do not require the use of any part of damage parcel No.- 2 for access to the city system of public streets.

The orders, in so far as they relate to damage parcel No. 2, should be reversed, with costs to the appellant in this court and in the Appellate Division, and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term for further action.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.