Case Name: In the Matter of an Application by Michael T. Daly, as Comsioner, etc.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12-27
Citations: 72 N.Y. St. Rep. 735
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of an Application by Michael T. Daly, as Comsioner, etc.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 72
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
In the Matter of an Application by Michael T. Daly, as Comsioner, etc.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 27, 1895.)
Condemnation proceedings—Allowances.
Under section 24, chapter 189 of 1893, in proceedings to acquire real estate and sanitary protection for the sources of water supply of New York City, the commissioners have no authority to fix any allowance, but the power is vested in the court.
Appeal from an order, granting an allowance to the attorneys of record.
Francis M. Scott, for app’lt; A. J. Miller, for resp’t.

Opinion:
PRATT, J.
—This is an appeal from an order made at special term involving the allowance made attorneys of record in this proceeding. The statute authorizing and regulating the proceeding provides that " such allowances for counsel fees as may be made by order of the court shall be paid," etc. It is plain that the commissioners had no authority to fix any allowance, but the power was vested in the court. It was, therefore, a matter of discretion, to he fixed in view of all the circumstances. The sum allowed did not exceed the limit prescribed by section 3253 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and was not an abuse of the discretion vested in the judge presiding at special term. The case involved much labor and responsibility, and required great care and much time in its management. In addition, new duties were imposed upon the attorneys, subsequent to the hearing before the court upon the first presentation of the commissioners' report. The proceeding involved the taking of 113 parcels of land, and the awards exceeded $150,000, and the time required was over two years. During all this time the case called for constant attention. Under all the facts and circumstances, we cannot say the amount allowed was unreasonable.
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.