New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-04-21
MOVE MADE TO GUST
LAND COMMISSIONERS
Corporation Counsel Watson
Gets Order from Court
Against Three.
RIGBY, MARTIN AND APGAR
Appraisers of Hill View Reser-
voir Property at Yonkers to
Explain Their Theory
as to Values.


favor of a certain lawyer and contempt
of court. Corporation Counsel Watson
has obtained an order directing George
n. Rigby. Bernard f. Martin and James
X. Apgar to show cause why they
should not be removed as commissioners
OF appraisal in the matter of acquiring
property for the proposed Hill View
reservoir in Yonkers Mr. Martin is a
former State Senator, and for years was
the Tammany leader of the old 9TH AS
sembly District in this city. Mr.. Rigby.
who ives in Yonkers. and Mr.. Apgar,
whose home is in PeekskiIl. are Republi-
cans and former Assemblymen from
Westchester County.
The order is returnable before Supreme
Court Justice Tompkins. at Nyack.
Rockland County, on Saturday at 10
a. m. Not only has the order beer
served on the commissioners, but also
Oh Joseph A. Flannery. a lawyer, who
represents the owner of the last of five
parcels which constitute the tract need
cd for the reservoir. The commissioners
are restrained from carrying on their
work pending a decision of the case.
Other Commissions Under Scrutiny.
This is the first time since the be-
ginning of the Catskill aqueduct work
that the city has taken steps to have any
of the condemnation commissioners re-
moved. That il may not be the last is
apparent. because Corporation Counsel
Watson has the work of other commits
sions under the closest scrutiny.
The record shows that Martin. Rigby
and Apgar were appointed on May 4.
1907, and filed their oaths of office sew
enteen days later. According to the pc
tition of Corporation Counsel Watson
for the order to show cause the COM
missioners wilfully and without justifi-
cation have held and are holding un-
necessary and improper sessions to the
delay and injury of the claimants and
adding greatly to the cost and expense
OF these proceedings to the city of New
York
The commissioners first took up work
on parcel No. |, consisting of between
one and two acres of cleared land. and
parcel No. 3. including little more than
three acres of land covered with a thick
growth of trees and bushes. Instead Of
condemning each tract as acreage, they
allowed the claimants to bring in testi-
mOny to show what the property was
worth cut up into ifty-seven different
lots. In doing this they held twenty
three separate meetings and took 739
pages Of testimony, which, according to
tho Corporation Counsel was grossly
excessive and unnecessary to determine
the compensation which ought to be
made for these parcels" The expense
incurred by these illegal actions" it is
stated. was at least $1,000. whereas It
would have been considerably less if the
work had been properly done
Disregard Of Cour. Decision.
By reason of these alleged errors the
awards on parcels | and 3. made in a
report dated November Is. 1908, We're
set aside by Justice Tompkins on JanG-
arv Is. 1860 He ordered the parcels re-
ferred TO a new commission for reap
praisar In doing so. he said: 1t seems
To me that the proofs before the com
nissioners die not Justify the admissions
of testimony as to the value of the tract
nv lots or the making Of awards based
upon tho assumption that the property is
valuable and marketable as lots. and my
opinion is that the evidence Of values
should have been limited to each of the
two parcels as a whole
twithstandng this decision Of the
court the commissioners went ahead to
determine the value of parcel No. . on
the same theory they had used in parcels
Nos. and = According to the Corpora
ton Counsel they did this ''wiIfully.
Illegally and Improperly. and against the
objections of counsel for the city of
New York" and they again put the city
TO some $4,000 expense. a report was
handed I'm on this parcel on June :. 1909.
awarding $4,000 for the property,
whereas tho property according 90 its
acreage value would not have cost the
city more than S4S.4J1-
In October of last year Justice Tomp-
Ikins rejected this report and ordered
rehear ring before new commissioners. In
his memorandum the justice said that
the tracts. consisting of seven or eight
acres. had never been subdivided. and
were covered with brush. trees and bowl
ders. The claimants witnesses" he
said. were allowed tO fix n value on
each separate 25-foot lot, on map by
which a proposed subdivision of the
propertv was shown, and the commits
sjoners evidently made their award upon
the theory that the whole property was
Immediately available and marketable as
lots. There was no evidence that there
was any demand or any market for lots
in this rough piece of woodland at the
time il was taken by the city in this pro-
ceeding."
Stick to Same Old Theory.
Notwithstanding this second rebuff and
admonition by the court the commission.
according TO the Corporation Counsel.
started right out to determine the com
pensation TO be given To the owner of
parcel No. on the same old theory.
This parcel. which is known as the King
property, consists of some fifty-three
acres taken by the city from an entire
tract Of eighty-five acres.
one OF the specifications in the petition
of the Corporation Counsel is: THAT the
commission has been adjourning It's pro-