Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. Henry A. Wingert et al., Respondents; In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. Anetta Bockar, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-03-14
Citations: 217 N.Y. 682
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. Henry A. Wingert et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. Anetta Bockar, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. Henry A. Wingert et al., Respondents. In the Matter of the Application of the Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant, v. Anetta Bockar, et al., Respondents.
Matter of Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Wingert, 171 App. Div. —, affirmed.
Matter of Manhattan Ry. Co. v. Bockar, 171 App. Div. — affirmed.
(Argued February 24, 1916;
decided March 14, 1916.)
Appeal in each of the above-entitled proceedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 11, 1916, affirming an order of Special Term in a proceeding, instituted under title 1 of chapter 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condemn street easements of light, air and access required for additional elevated railway facilities in the city of New York. The proceedings were instituted subsequent to the plaintiff’s entry upon the streets in front of certain of the abutting properties.
The following question was certified in the first-entitled proceeding: “In the above-entitled proceeding had the Special Term of the Supreme Court power to make the order dated 15th day of May, 1915, directing the commissioners of appraisal herein, in addition to ‘ the compensation to be made to the owners for the property to be taken for the public use specified,’ also to ascertain 1 any.damages which the defendant owners of said parcels in the above-entitled proceedings may have sustained and may hereafter sustain by reason of any entry upon and use by plaintiff of defendants’ said property ?’” In the second-entitled proceeding the same question was certified, except that the order therein mentioned was dated April 29,1915.
J. Osgood Nichols, Francis S. Williams and James L. Quackenbush for appellant.
Arthur Furber, Edgar M. Cullen, Jacob W. Bermant and Banton Moore for respondents.

Opinion:
Order in each case affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Not voting: Sea-bury, J.