Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., for the Opening and Extending of Forty-third Avenue (Grout Avenue-Percy Street), etc., in the Borough of Queens, City of New York, as Amended by an Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial District, Dated November 13, 1928, etc., Woodris Realty Corporation, Harbro Holding Company, Inc., Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1934-06
Citations: 242 A.D. 661
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., for the Opening and Extending of Forty-third Avenue (Grout Avenue-Percy Street), etc., in the Borough of Queens, City of New York, as Amended by an Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial District, Dated November 13, 1928, etc., Woodris Realty Corporation, Harbro Holding Company, Inc., Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 242
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., for the Opening and Extending of Forty-third Avenue (Grout Avenue-Percy Street), etc., in the Borough of Queens, City of New York, as Amended by an Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial District, Dated November 13, 1928, etc., Woodris Realty Corporation, Harbro Holding Company, Inc., Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent.

Opinion:
Motion for reargument denied, without costs. The only claim that the appellant made to the award for damage parcels Nos. 10,12 and 18 was " as mortgagee pursuant to a certain mortgage covering the said damage parcels as well as other parcels." The Woodris Realty Corporation, originally an appellant, claimed those damage parcels as owner. If the appellant desires to amend its claim it should apply at Special Term. Claiming as mortgagee, it apparently matters not 1 whether parcel 18 was a private easement or otherwise. The facts in that respect will undoubtedly be developed on a new hearing. By inadvertence the rule of damages was not correctly stated in the last sentence of the decision, and this court will amend the same by striking out the part thereof after the word " damages." Present—Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.