Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Purpose of Opening Spuyten Duyvil Road. In the Matter of the Application of Caroline Weigel et al., Appellants, for Damages Caused by the Closing of Old Kingsbridge Road; The City of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-04-29
Citations: 208 N.Y. 592
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Purpose of Opening Spuyten Duyvil Road. In the Matter of the Application of Caroline Weigel et al., Appellants, for Damages Caused by the Closing of Old Kingsbridge Road; The City of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Purpose of Opening Spuyten Duyvil Road. In the Matter of the Application of Caroline Weigel et al., Appellants, for Damages Caused by the Closing of Old Kingsbridge Road; The City of New York et al., Respondents.
Matter of Mayor, etc., of N. T. {Spuyten Duyvil Road), 152 App. Div. 114, affirmed.
(Argued April 15, 1913;
decided April 29, 1913.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 8, 1912, which reversed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding.
The following questions were certified: “ 1. Did the orders of the court at Special Term entered on the 23d day of June, 1903, determine that the Kingsbridge road was legally closed. 2. Did the failure of the appellants to appeal from the orders of the Special Term, entered June 23,1903, or to give notice of an intention to bring such orders up for review on appeal from the final order confirming the report of the commissioners, preclude the Appellate Division from passing upon the facts on which the orders of the Special Term were based? ”
Clarence C. Ferris for appellants.
Archibald JR. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Joel J. Squier and James Regan Fitz Gerald of counsel), for City .of New York, respondent.
Alpheus JEL. Favour and Edward L. Thompson for Estate of Isaac Gh Johnson et al., respondents.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; first question certified answered in the negative; second question not answered because an answer is unnecessary; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.