Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of the Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo, Respondents, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Ascertain the Compensation to Be Paid to the Owners of and Parties Interested in Lands Proposed to Be Taken in Fee for Street Purposes, and Claimed to Be Owned by Warren H. Brush and Others and The Erie Railroad Company, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 90.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-07
Citations: 146 A.D. 883
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of the Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo, Respondents, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Ascertain the Compensation to Be Paid to the Owners of and Parties Interested in Lands Proposed to Be Taken in Fee for Street Purposes, and Claimed to Be Owned by Warren H. Brush and Others and The Erie Railroad Company, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 90.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 883–884

Head Matter:
Fourth Department,
July, 1911.
In the Matter of the Application of the Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo, Respondents, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Ascertain the Compensation to Be Paid to the Owners of and Parties Interested in Lands Proposed to Be Taken in Fee for Street Purposes, and Claimed to Be Owned by Warren H. Brush and Others and The Erie Railroad Company, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 90.)
Eminent domain — damages.
Appeal by The Brie Railroad Company from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Brie county clerk’s office on the 20th day of September, 1910, denying a motion to have the report of the commissioners sent back with instructions to separate the award into the cost of land taken and the damage to certain property, and also from an order entered on the 4th day of August, 1910, confirming the report of the said commissioners.

Opinion:
Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and report set aside and remitted to the commissioners, and they are directed to separate the award made by them so as to show the cost of the land taken and the amount of consequential damages sustained by the landowners by reason of the'carrying out of the improvement directed to be made. All concurred, except Kruse, J., who dissented in a memorandum.