The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-10
WIDENING BROADWAY.
The Case in the Supreme
Court.
Objections to tho Report Of the Commissioner q,
Estimates and Assessments Tho Grievances Of
Property Acknowledgements Of Counsel.


An application has been made on the part Of tina
Mayor, Aldermen and CommOnalty for confirmation
Of the report OF the Commissioners Of Estimates and
Assessments In the matter OF widening Broadway
nom Thirty fourth street to Fifty ninth street. The
case came up yesterday In the Special Term Su-
preme Court. II appeared that all the Judges be-
fore whom the question could be discussed were
more or less interested in the matter many Of them
residing in the vicinity Of the localities proposed to
be widened, and consequently did not take part In
the proceedings. Judge Gilbert OF Brooklyn, pre-
sided.
quite an array OF legal talent appeared to oppose
the confirmation OF the report the part of prop
erty owners who complained OF grievances. 1t will
be remembered that the report OF the Commission.
ers, Just appointed under the act OF 1862 was set
aside, on motion OF Mr.. Richard O'Gorman Counsel
to the Corporation, acting under the law making
provision for such motion passed in 1871 The de-
csiOn OF Judge Cardoz0 set aside the report and
referred it back to other Commissioners 1t was ap-
pealed from, but was supported by the decision Of
the General Term and recently by that of the Court
of Appeals.
Counsel to the Corporation with whom was Mr..
vanderpoeD, in opening the case yesterday stated
that he presented the report of the majority of the
Commissioners appointed, and as he saw counsel
representing parties In the matter in attendance,
and was not aware whether they intended to OBJ
ject to the report, and, If So what the nature
and extent of the objections, he would suggest to
the Court that the proper mode of conducting this
discussion would be that those gentlemen should
proceed to state their objections, and after they
had done adjournment should be taken
so that the Counsel to the Corporation, act
ing on behalf Of the CITY, should have time to
examine the objections made and act thereon
he should be advised In this case there the
peculiar embarrassment that the Commissioners,
after signing the report of the majority had on
caliy notified the Corporation Counsel of inten-
ton to present the minority report, setting forth
wherein he differed from the decision of the major
Court, and he believed 1t to be his official duty to
lay it before the Court. Although acting in
lieved his duty in this proceeding was similar to
that imposed on the Court-namey, to advise such
a course of discussion as seemed best for the city
and fair toward the parties whose property was
taken.
The Court decided that the discussion should be
conducted in the manner suggested.
Mr.. Anderson, on behalf OF fifteen property own
ers, then proceeded to open the case and point out
the objections they entertained In reference the
report. He contended that the Commissioners had
not the jurisdiction claimed. He also objected to
the Insufficient awards made, upon the ground that
which they made their awards. He had no doubt
that the commissioners were DESTROYS of doing their
not been made of some portion of the real estate In
question. Counsel then gave history OF the law
To the principles OF assessment he broadly objected.
The Improvement Of Broadway in that portion
which Is to be widened was, he urged, Of no
advantage to the owners on the improved
street, but only to those above and be-
low-that is to say, to those entirely
SO far as value was concerned. The assessments,
however, were made to much further extent be-
low the commencement of the alteration than
above. He claimed that other rules governing
the area Of assessment were ridiculous-one side
noe laod0 10 10 iii n
large, in his view, was the chief party benefited
and that the special advantages to owner were COM
paratively small He called special attention to the
property OF Mr.. Mas, which was assessed nearly
81 IS square foot, while the next block was as
difference. He also called attention to property
leased by Mr.. Lawler in 146th and 14sth streets,
simply the value of the buildings and not the lease
hold. He urged, in conclusion, that all that the
property owners asked was fairness and equity in
making out the awards and assessments.
Mr. Delafed said that two reports were submit
ted-one called majority and the other minority
report The majority report was prepared by Messrs.
Wood and Jones, two OF the Commissioners, and the
other by Commissioner Hennessey. Having defined
the points OF difference In the two reports he re-
viewed the laws governing the assessment Of dam
ages In cases like the present. He insisted that 1t
was firmly established point OF law that the three
Commissioners should meet In consultation and
then prepare their report In this case no notice
sent to Commissioner Hennessy He called atten-
subsequent action of the Commissioners meet
ing of Commissioners Wood and Jones he pro-
nOunced illegal and high-handed They struck of
from assessment large area, from Sixtysixth TO
Tooth street. He would not say that either OF the
Commissioners was corrupt, but 1t was a singu-
lar fact that one OF them owned whole block
exempted from the assessment Mr. Hennessy
so indignant that he entered his protest
It, an e S TO Of
ST. 900 assessed against the city, and stated In
this connection that they saddled $500 900 upon the
city through simple misinterpretatiOn OF their
orders. He called the attention or the Court to the
difference in the arrears established by the former
Madison avenues, he insisted that they In
jured rather than benefited by the proposed
widening Of Broadway as II opened rival thorough,
the only one that should be confirmed.
Mr.. Kitchell objected to the area Of the assess.
ment, and insisted that the report should be sent
back for correction this account. The assess
ments different portions were assessed on diner
emit principles and unequally, and they had not as
corrOb0ration OF these statements.
Mr.. Martin called attention to the assessments in
other cases, claiming that gross injustice had been
done, and that the report should be corrected In
this regard. He made strong point also OF the dis
cordancy OF the Commissioners.
Various counsel In turn called attention to specific
cases in which 1t was claimed injustice had been
made both Among aese Mr. as
called attention to property on the northwest cor
ner of Broadway and Thirty fourth street This prop
erty has a front OF forty and half feet on Broad
way, and belongs to G. W. Pell. He claims that the
property is worth $4,000. If the harassing subject
of widening Broadway could be forever set at rest,
and the street be allowed to be what 1t strictly
should be, business street. this property 1t was
urged with the portion OF the building, would to-
day readily rent for s., 000 making a principal OF
$li4,0OO. 1t was a fact well known that property
on the west side OF Broadway for retail business
purposes commands twice as much rent 1t seems
to have escaped the attention OF the Commissioners
that the block between Thirty-fourth and Thirty
fifth streets sustains greater injury than any
other block on the entire line OF Broadway affected
by the widening In consequence OF the already
excessive width of this part OF Broadway At this
point the street is 14 feet wide and 10 is proposed
to increase this twenty-five feet, making 1t l06 feet
wide. Altogether 1t was claimed that the award
was inadequate, and should be $4,000 instead Of
100000.
Mr. r. H. Cudlip stated that he owned the block
between Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh streets, on
the east side OF Broadway, alsa the southeast
ner of Broadway and Forty-eig&h street and Broad
way and Forty third street. The awards given him
amounted to Sl38,0O0. II the same percentage had
been allowed him as to his neighhors on the Oppo-
site side Of the way he claimed he would have been
allowed 5000. 900.
All the objections to the confirmation OF che re.