Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. T. Collis, Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, for and on Behalf of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Certain Pieces or Parcels of Land, etc., for the Purposes of Sewerage and Drainage, etc., from Amsterdam Avenue at Fort George to the Harlem River, in the Twelfth Ward of the City of New York. Eliza H. McCullough and Others, Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05-05
Citations: 144 A.D. 382
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. T. Collis, Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, for and on Behalf of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Certain Pieces or Parcels of Land, etc., for the Purposes of Sewerage and Drainage, etc., from Amsterdam Avenue at Fort George to the Harlem River, in the Twelfth Ward of the City of New York. Eliza H. McCullough and Others, Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 382–387

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. T. Collis, Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, for and on Behalf of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Certain Pieces or Parcels of Land, etc., for the Purposes of Sewerage and Drainage, etc., from Amsterdam Avenue at Fort George to the Harlem River, in the Twelfth Ward of the City of New York. Eliza H. McCullough and Others, Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent.
First Department,
May 5, 1911.
Eminent domain — condemnation for sewer purposes, ÍTew York city— refusal to confirm report — submission to new commissioners — award — present value.
Where the court refuses to confirm the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment on the condemnation of lands for sewage purposes in the city of New York on the ground that the award is too large, new commissioners should be appointed. If the refusal to confirm the award be affirmed by the Appellate Division the order should be modified by appointing new commissioners instead of sending the report back to the original commissioners.
Commissioners in such condemnation proceeding should base the award upon the present market value of the premises; not upon its future market value.
Scott, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by Eliza H. McCullough and others from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 29th day of April, 1910, denying a motion for an order confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment.
Frederic B. Jennings, for the appellants.
L. Howell La Motte, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Ingraham, P. J.:
I agree with Mr. Justice Scott that where confirmation of a report is refused upon the ground stated by the learned justice at Special Term new commissioners should always be appointed, and if the refusal to confirm the award is affirmed that the order should be modified by appointing new commissioners, instead of sending it back to the commissioners whose award was not confirmed. An examination of the expert testimony in this case seems to show that the very great difference of opinion was based largely upon a difference as to what this property could be in the future used for, and what it could some time in the future be sold for, rather than its present market value.
In view of the testimony before the commissioners, and what seems to me to be the absence of any real evidence as to what the actual value of the property is, I do not think it was error for the court to provide that the question as to the value of the property taken should be determined by new commissioners when the evidence as to what the property would actually sell for to-day, rathór than its prospective value in the future could be more satisfactorily established. What I think the commissioners had to determine is its present value, what it would now sell for, and not what real estate experts think it would sell for at some future time. I think, therefore, that the order should be modified by sending the proceeding back to new commissioners to be appointed by the order, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Laughlin, Clarke and Miller, JJ., concurred; Scott, J., dissented.