Case Name: In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Seth Low and Others, Constituting the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners of the City of New York, etc., Respondents, Relative to Acquiring a Perpetual Underground Right, Easement and Right of Way under Joralemon Street from a Point Therein between the East River and Furman Street to Its Intersection with Fulton Street, etc. (Mynders, Notman and Abbott Parcels.) William R. Willcox and Others, Constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York for the First District, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-06-21
Citations: 151 A.D. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Seth Low and Others, Constituting the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners of the City of New York, etc., Respondents, Relative to Acquiring a Perpetual Underground Right, Easement and Right of Way under Joralemon Street from a Point Therein between the East River and Furman Street to Its Intersection with Fulton Street, etc. (Mynders, Notman and Abbott Parcels.) William R. Willcox and Others, Constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York for the First District, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 572–577

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application and Petition of Seth Low and Others, Constituting the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners of the City of New York, etc., Respondents, Relative to Acquiring a Perpetual Underground Right, Easement and Right of Way under Joralemon Street from a Point Therein between the East River and Furman Street to Its Intersection with Fulton Street, etc. (Mynders, Notman and Abbott Parcels.) William R. Willcox and Others, Constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York for the First District, Appellants.
Second Department,
June 21, 1912.
Eminent domain—construction of subway in city of New York — costs - and counsel fees.
The court in a proceeding to acquire lands for a subway in the city of New York has authority, both under the city charter and the Rapid Transit Act, to allow costs and counsel fees to the persons to whom damages have been awarded.
Burr, J., dissented.
Appeal by William R. Willcox and others, constituting the Public Service Commission of the State of New York for the First District, as successors to the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, from certain parts of an order of the Supreme Court, ma.de at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 25th day of May, 1911.
Clarence L. Barber [Terence Farley and Archibald R. Watson with him on the brief], for the appellant.
George W. Hinckley, Charles W. West and Frederick B. Campbell, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Rich, J.:
The Public Service Commission of the State of New York for the First District, successors of the Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, appeal from an order of the Special Term granting costs and allowances to the respondents, to whom damages have been awarded for property rights taken for the.construction and operation of a subway under Joralemon street, in the city of New York.
There are no disputed facts presented by the record, and the only question to be considered is whether or not the court possessed authority and power to make the order appealed from. This question came before this court in this same proceeding in 1908, on an appeal from an order of the Special Term denying costs and allowances on the ground of lack of power in the court. It was contended by the appellants that such power was given both by the provisions of the charter of the city and by the Bapid Transit Act. This court sustained this contention, holding that the case now presented was within the provisions of the charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466, § 998, as amd. by Laws of 1904, chap. 736), authorizing the payment of allowances, counsel fees, etc., in proceedings for " the acquisition of property for any public purpose, in the city of New York," and that costs and allowances were also authorized by the provisions of the Bapid Transit Act (Laws of 1891, chap. 4, and acts amendatory thereof). (Matter of Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners, 128 App. Div. 103.) That case was taken to the Court of Appeals, but the question of whether such costs, disbursements and allowances were not authorized by the provisions of the charter was not passed upon by that court. (Matter of Rapid Transit R. R. Comrs., 197 N. Y. 81, 110, 111.) Our determination that under the provisions of the charter authority exists for the granting of costs and allowances, standing unreversed, is so far as the Special Term and this court is concerned the law of the case, and controls the disposition of this appeal in favor of the respondents.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg and Woodward, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., read for reversal.