Case Name: In re DECATUR ST. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. Appeal of WALKER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-18
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 855
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re DECATUR ST. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. Appeal of WALKER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 855–866

Head Matter:
In re DECATUR ST. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. Appeal of WALKER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 18, 1909.)
1. Eminent Domain (§ 149 )—Acquisition of Land fob Stbeets—Compensation.
In proceedings by a city to acquire the fee for street purposes of land laid out by the proprietor as a street, the fee of which is in him and disconnected from the abutting lots, the fee owner and the abutting owners are only entitled to nominal damages except in exceptional cases, the burden of proving which rests on the owner.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 149. ]
2. Eminent Domain (§ 152 )—Acquisition of Land fob Streets—Compensation.
A proprietor divided a tract into lots and streets, and sold lots by descriptions, referring to the streets, and thereby disconnected the lots from the streets, the fee to which remained in him. Thereafter the city acquired the fee of a street by condemnation. Awards for parcels thereof were made to unknown owners. Held that, as the awards were for all whose interests, whether in fee or by easements, were involved in the taking, they must be divided between the fee owner and the abutting lot owners, and the court properly gave the fee owner a nominal sum and gave the remainder to the abutting owners, for an assessment to pay the awards and the expenses was cast on the abutting lots.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 152. ]
3. Evidence (§ 51*)—Appeal—Judicial Notice—Matters of Record.
The court on "appeal from an order distributing an award made to unknown owners in condemnation proceedings may inspect the public records and learn that an assessment to pay awards and expenses for the taking of the fee in land already dedicated for street purposes had been made with a view to uphold the order of the lower court directing the payment of the awards made.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Dec. Dig. § 51. ]
4. Eminent Domain (I 145 )—Acquisition of Land fob Streets—Awards.
The right of abutting owners to a part of the award made for the taking by a city for street uses of land laid out as a street by the proprietor is not affected by the fact that no assessment to pay the awards and expenses had been cast on the abutting land.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Dec. Dig. § 145. ]
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
In the matter of the application of the City of New York to acquire lands to open Decatur street. From so much of an order of the Special Term as directed the payment to the City of New York and others of certain awards made for lands taken by the city, Frank B. Walker appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, GAYNOR, BURR, and MILLER, JJ.
John M. Perry, for appellant.
James A. Sheehan, for respondents Schmitt, Schauf, and Jung.-
Merle I. St. John, for respondent Wenzler.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
Streets to be opened in the future, including the one now called Decatur street, were laid out on a tract of land in the township of-Bushwick, pursuant to chapter 296, p. 437, of the Laws of 1852. The said town afterwards became a part of the city of Brooklyn. The owner of the said tract also made and filed a map thereof by lots and showing the said streets, and thereafter sold the same by descriptions referring to the said streets. The said streets thereby became subject to the easements of the said lots thereon. In 1903 the city of New York acquired the fee of the land in the said Decatur street for street uses by a proceeding to open the said street. Awards for several parcels thereof were made to "unknown owners." The said parcels had not been included in the original conveyances of the abutting lots, and in that way became disconnected therefrom, and the fee thereof remained in the tract proprietor. The appellant succeeded to such title, and brought this proceeding to get the awards. The court at Special Term has allowed him only $1 thereof in the case of each parcel, and given the rest to the abutting owners.
If the awards had been made to the owner of the fee, he would not need to have brought this proceeding. By the adjudication of the order of confirmation in the proceeding they would have been his, and he could not be deprived of them. But being to "unknown owners," they are for all persons whose interests, whether in fee or by easements, were involved in the taking, excepting any of such persons to whom their awards are made to them by name, there being none such here. The awards "were not restricted to the'owners of the ultimate fee, but w'é're intended to embrace all persons having any interest whatever in the lands"; and the case from which this quotation is made is direct authority that the abutting owners have such an interest, however small or difficult of definition it may be (Matter of the Opening of Eleventh Street, 81 N. Y. 436). And that the award has to be divided between the fee owner of the street strip and the abutting 'owner is settled by' authority. Each of them was entitled to only a nominal award and should have been given no'more. The naked fee in the street, disconnected from the, abutting lot, is presumed to have only a nominal value. In the case of City of Buffalo v. Pratt, 131 N. Y. 293, 30 N. E. 233, 15 L. R. A. 413, 27 Am. St. Rep. 592, the abutting owner owned the land in the street, and it was therefore of substantial value to the owner. If an exceptional case can exist where it is of substantial' valué to the owner when disconnected from the abutting land, the burden is on the owner to show it, which was not done here. In the same way the easements of the abutting owner, actually or theoretically taken in the taking of the street strip, are only of nominal value. But where instead of a nominal award, a substantial award is' made to "unknown owners," it has to be divided between them in some way. There is no one to take it. That this is so, and that it is pfqper to .make the division in the way the learned court below did, namely,- give the nominal fee owner $1 and the remainder to" the abutting owner, for the equitable reason that an assessment to pay the awards and the expenses is cast on the abutting lands, is settled by authority. Matter of Opening of Eleventh Street, 81 N. Y. 436; Matter of Opening Beverly Road (Sup.) 115 N. Y. Supp. 208.
But it is said that it does not appear that such an assessment was cast in this case,—that the amount was not cast on a wide assessment district instead of on the abutting lands—or that the city did not pay a part of it. Well, this is all a matter of public record in the building in which our court sits, and we may inspect the same and see that the assessment was made in the usual way, i. e., to the centre of the blocks, to uphold the order below. Moreover, the brief of the learned counsel for the appellant raises no such question, but on the contrary argues that the abutters "acquiesced in the assessment" of the abutting-lots for the awards and expenses, nor was it raised below. And finally it was held in Matter of the Opening of Eleventh Street, supra, that the said considerations could not affect the rights of the parties to have the award divided between them.
The order should be affirmed.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., who dissents.