Case Name: In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Michael T. Daly, as Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, Respondent, for and on Behalf of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, under Chapter 189 of the Laws of 1893, to Acquire Certain Real Estate, as the Term " Real Estate " is Defined in Said Act, for the Purpose of Providing for the Sanitary Protection of the Sources of the Water Supply of the City of New York. (Carmel, Lake Gleneida.) George R. Cole and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902
Citations: 72 A.D. 394
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Michael T. Daly, as Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, Respondent, for and on Behalf of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, under Chapter 189 of the Laws of 1893, to Acquire Certain Real Estate, as the Term “ Real Estate ” is Defined in Said Act, for the Purpose of Providing for the Sanitary Protection of the Sources of the Water Supply of the City of New York. (Carmel, Lake Gleneida.) George R. Cole and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 394–404

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Michael T. Daly, as Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, Respondent, for and on Behalf of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, under Chapter 189 of the Laws of 1893, to Acquire Certain Real Estate, as the Term “ Real Estate ” is Defined in Said Act, for the Purpose of Providing for the Sanitary Protection of the Sources of the Water Supply of the City of New York. (Carmel, Lake Gleneida.) George R. Cole and Others, Appellants.
Condemnation of a mill right for a city water supply— its value as a water power may he shown —its value for storage purposes or to the city may not.
In a proceeding by the city of New York to acquire the right of a person entitled to use, for mill purposes, the outlet of a lake, desired by the city for the protection of its water supply, evidence of the value of the defendant’s right with reference to the utility of the lake as a water power is competent, but evidence as to the value of such right with reference to the utility of the lake for storage purposes or as to the value of the water of the lake to the city is incompetent.
Appeals by the claimants, George R. Cole and others, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at Dutchess County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Putnam on the 9th day of June, 1900, reversing and setting aside the fourth separate report of the commissioners of appraisal herein in certain respects.
Isaac JV. Mills, for the appellants Cole.
Abram J: Miller, for the appellant Miller.
Clayton Ryder, for the appellants, the trustees of Drew Seminary.
3. T. Dykman, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
Upon carefully considering this case a second time, after the reargument which has been had, we are not prepared to say that the learned judge at Special Term erred in setting aside the report of the commissioners herein, so far as it affects the property of the appellants Cole.
The principal portion of the award, amounting to $36,990, was directed to be paid to the owners of what is known as the Coles Parcel, Ho. 64, " for the rights of milling, all rights of pondage and all rights to raise and lower the waters of Lake Gleneida."
Two kinds of evidence were received by the commissioners in regard to the value of the rights thus taken: (1) Evidence of its value as a water power; and (2) evidence of its value for the purposes of a storage reservoir.
The first class of evidence was properly received. (City of Syracuse v. Stacey, 169 N. Y. 231.) The case cited, however, is an authority adverse to the competency of the second class of evidence. We think it is clear that the commissioners erred in taking into consideration the value of the Cole right with reference to its utility for storage purposes; and there was so much proof of this sort that we are strongly inclined to think that it must have influenced them in fixing the amount of damages.
It is also to be observed that evidence was erroneously admitted as to the value of the water of Lake Gleneida to the city of Hew York. This proof is not sanctioned, as seems to have been supposed, by the decision of the General Term of this department in Matter of Gilroy (85 Hun, 424). It was there held that while in such cases as this the commissioners should take into consideration the availability of the property for use in connection with the water supply of Hew York city, the value of the particular property to the city, in view of its necessities, was not a legal measure of dam ages. In other words, it was declared to be proper to consider, as an element in the market value of the property to be'taken, the •existence of a demand for such property on the part of the city; but this did not authorize an inquiry as to what that particular property was worth to the city.
In a case of this kind, which relates to the rights of persons entitled to use the outlet of a lake for mill purposes, the information acquired by the commissioners in viewing the property to he taken is not of the same character or value as that obtained where the property viewed is merely a piece of land and includes no intangible rights. Here the view is manifestly less helpful, and more depends Upon, the character and weight of the expert evidence which is laid before the commissioners. Hence, the reception of incompetent evidence is more serious, for it is more likely to lead to ail erroneous conclusion.
On the whole, we are convinced that the Cole award would not have been as large as it is if the commissioners had not adopted an erroneous rule as to the measure of damages.
As to the awards to the Drew Seminary and Henry F. Miller, however, the record discloses no sufficient reason for setting them aside, and we think they should have been allowed to stand.
The order appealed from should be modified so as to confirm the awards of the commissioners to the Drew Seminary and Henry F. Miller, including costs and counsel fees, and as thus modified affirmed.
All concurred ; Goodrich, P. J., concurring in result.