Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Land Required for the Construction of a Bridge over the Harlem River between One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street and First Avenue and One Hundred and Thirty-fourth Street and Willis Avenue. The City of New York, Appellant; George W. Wickersham et al., as Executors of Mary A. P. Draper, Deceased, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-06-18
Citations: 215 N.Y. 718
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Land Required for the Construction of a Bridge over the Harlem River between One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street and First Avenue and One Hundred and Thirty-fourth Street and Willis Avenue. The City of New York, Appellant; George W. Wickersham et al., as Executors of Mary A. P. Draper, Deceased, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Land Required for the Construction of a Bridge over the Harlem River between One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street and First Avenue and One Hundred and Thirty-fourth Street and Willis Avenue. The City of New York, Appellant; George W. Wickersham et al., as Executors of Mary A. P. Draper, Deceased, Respondents.
(Argued May 31, 1915;
decided June 18, 1915.)
Matter of Comr. of Public Works (Harlem River Bridge), 163 App. Div. 956, affirmed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 12, 1914,'which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming a report of commissioners in condemnation proceedings. The question presented by the appeal as to the award for final damage No. 14 is whether, in valuing the remainder not taken, the commissioners had the right to treat as a part of such remainder a lot held in the same ownership fronting on a side street, adjoining the rear of the lots from which final damage No. 14 was taken off the front. The questions presented by the city’s appeal as to the award “ for pier and beneficial use of land under pier,” situated on final damage No. 15, are (1) that as the city was the owner of the fee title to the land under water under the pier no award should have been made therefor or for the pier itself; (2) in any event, the respondent was not entitled to the whole of the award of $12,850, which represents the value of the entire beneficial use in perpetuity of the pier and the unincumbered fee value of the land under water under' the pier owned by the city, and (3) there being a dispute between the city and' the claimant as to the ownership of the pier and of the land under water under the pier, the award therefor, if any, should have been made to unknown owners.
Frank L. Folk, Corporation Counsel (Joel J. Squier and John J. Kearney of counsel), for appellant.
Merle I. St. John for respondents.
James A. Feering for Swift & Company, as amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscook, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Miller and Seabury, JJ.