Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of East Thirty-sixth Street. George M. Craigen Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-01-25
Citations: 217 N.Y. 621
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of East Thirty-sixth Street. George M. Craigen Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of East Thirty-sixth Street. George M. Craigen Company, Appellant.
Matter of City of New York (East 36th Street), 168 App. Div. 463, affirmed.
(Argued January 6, 1916;
decided January 25, 1916.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the reports of commissioners of estimate and assessment in street opening proceedings. The only questions raised on this appeal are whether the award for damage parcel 1, amounting to $667.32, which is $332.68 less than the amount testified to by the city’s expert, is a proper and adequate compensation to the owner of the property for the part. taken and the consequential damages to the remainder, whether the commissioners of estimate were justified in making an award to the owner of damage parcel No. 1 for an amount less than the estimate of damage testified to by the city’s witness, and. whether the assessment levied on benefit parcel No. 31 is excessive or was levied upon an erroneous theory.
Philip M. Bromberg and Hugo Hirsh for appellant.
Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel (Andrew C. Troy and Howard L. Campion of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
The unanimous affirmance of the order confirming the report of the commissioners of estimate and assessment prevents the consideration on this appeal of the questions presented by the appellant; order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ.