Case Name: In re ALEXANDER STREET IN CITY OF YONKERS. YERKS et al. v. HARRIGAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-06-02
Citations: 129 N.Y.S. 944
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re ALEXANDER STREET IN CITY OF YONKERS. YERKS et al. v. HARRIGAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 129
Pages: 944–951

Head Matter:
In re ALEXANDER STREET IN CITY OF YONKERS. YERKS et al. v. HARRIGAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 2, 1911.)
1, Eminent Domain (§ 233 )—Acquisition of Land fob Streets—Award of Damages.
The commissioners of estimate in proceedings by a city under Laws 1908, c. 452,. to acquire land for a street, may not in awarding damages determine that the owner maintaining an elevated coal conveyor over the land taken may continue to do so on specified conditions, since whether the structure will be' a nuisance, can only be determined in an action brought for that purpose, and since, under article 3, § .1, the power to permit the maintenance of such a structure rests in the council of the city, which may not authorize the maintenance of a structure amounting to a nuisance.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 233. ]
2. Eminent Domain (§ 235 )—Acquisition of Land fob Streets—Repobt of Commissioners of Estimate—Objections—Sufficiency.
An objection to the report of commissioners of estimate in proceedings by a city to acquire land for a street which points out that the theory adopted by the commissioners was erroneous is sufficient, though the objection gave an improper reason, or did not state all the grounds for an attack on the report.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. § 601; Dec. Dig. § 235. ]
Woodward, J., dissenting. •
Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.
Proceedings by the City of Yonkers to acquire land for the opening and extension of Alexander Street from Ashburton Avenue to the south line of Wells Avenue in the city. From an order refusing to confirm as to. a parcel the report of the commissioners of estimate and directing a rehearing as to such parcel, and from an intermediate order permitting amendment to objections to the report, Elijah M. Yerks and others appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Ralph Earl Prime, Jr., for appellants.
John F. Brennan, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BURR, J.
If any authority exists to permit the maintenance of a structure like the coal carrier described in the evidence in these proceedings across Alexander street, it rests in the common council of the city of Yonkers. Laws 1908, c. 452, art. 3, § 1. Even the common council could not authorize the maintenance of a structure which was a nuisance. City of New York v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 52 Misc. Rep. 222, 102 N. Y. Supp. 900, affirmed 121 App. Div. 740, 106 N. Y. Supp. 506. The order appointing the commissioners confers upon them no jurisdiction to determine whether this structure is a nuisance or not. That may be a question of fact which can only be determined when the proper parties are before the court, in an action brought for that purpose. The possible consequences of a rule of law such as is suggested in the opinion of Mr. Justice WOODWARD seems to me to be sufficient to condemn it as unsound. Under that rule, if the property owner had a factory building 100 feet long and 5 stories high, directly at right angles to the line of the proposed street, it would be within the power of commissioners of estimate to determine that a tunnel the width of the street and of a height equivalent to two stories of the building would be sufficient for street purposes, and they might by their decision give legal sanction to the maintenance of the remaining three stories above the line of the street. They would, in effect, do that when they provided that the property owner should be compensated not for the destruction of the whole of that portion of the building within the line of the street, but only for such part of it as they determined should be actually removed.
We do not think that there is any serious question as to the sufficiency of the original objections to the award of the commissioners. Their report indicated the theory upon which they had proceeded. The objection clearly pointed out that this theory was erroneous. The fact that in that connection reference was made to the specific sums allowed for protecting the conveyor and for moving the scales would not detract from the scope of the objection. The most that could be claimed would be that, while the propriety of the theory adopted by the commissioners was attacked, an improper reason or not all of the reasons were stated for the grounds of such attack. No amendment of the objection was really necessary. It is also true that in the testimony offered by the property owner in the first instance he stated as the extent of his damage, based upon the value of the entire parcel before and after the taking, the sum of $8,200. It is quite clear that in this testimony he was referring only to the value of the land, for in his subsequent testimony he stated in detail the consequences of removing the conveyor and the trestle supporting the same, and introduced evidence as to the expense of the necessary change, all of which was received without objection.
The orders appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., who dissents