Case ID: ny_241/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "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 Lands Required for the Opening of Wallace Avenue in the Borough of The Bronx. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al., Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of Eastchester Road in the Borough of The Bronx. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al., Appellants. In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of Kinsella Street, in the Borough of The Bronx. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al., Appellants.
    
      Tax — assessment — condemnation proceedings — street opening — inclusion within area of assessment for benefit of lands owned by railroad and used as railroad yard.
    
    . Matter of City of New York (’Wallace Ave.), 207 App. Div. 897, affirmed.
    
      Matter of City of New York (Eastchester Road), 207 App. Div. 896, affirmed.
    
      Matter of City of New York (Kinsella Street), 207 App. Div. 897, affirmed.
    (Argued October 6, 1925;
    decided October 20, 1925.)
    Appeal in each of the above-entitled procedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 21, 1923, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the reports of commissioners of estimate and of commissioners of assessment in condemnation proceedings to acquire lands for the opening of a street. The question in each case was whether' it was proper to include in the area of assessment for benefit lands owned by a railroad corporation and used by it as a railroad yard. It was also contended that the assessment was excessive.
    
      Robert L. Luce and Charles M. Sheafe, Jr., for appellants.
    
      George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel (Joel J. Squier and William B. R. Faber of counsel), for respondent.
   Order in each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Not sitting: Lehman, J.