Court Opinion

ID: 3595580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:43:06.16204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.178537
License: Public Domain

Relators seek to compel the commissioner of docks to approve permits for the filling in of lands under water.
The facts herein are substantially the same as in Appleby v.City of New York, decided herewith, with this difference: The city established a new bulkhead line in 1916, which crosses the premises granted between Twelfth and Thirteenth avenues. It was held in the action that the rights of the relators are not limited by this bulkhead line but only by the bulkhead line established by the secretary of war. The court below decided herein that a writ of peremptory mandamus should issue unless condemnation proceedings were instituted to acquire relators' property and property rights within such line. (199 App. Div. 552. ) *Page 366 
We held in the action that the title of relators to lands actually under water is subject to the rights of the city to improve the same for the purposes of navigation but that the city must re-acquire the property rights in the land under water which it has conveyed before it can carry out its plans for such improvement.
This application should not, however, be granted. Section 15 of title 4 of the sinking fund ordinance of 1844, referred to in the opinion in the action, provides:
"No grant made by virtue of this ordinance shall. authorize the grantee to construct bulkheads or piers or make land in conformity therewith, without permission to do so is first had and obtained from the common council."
The water grants under which relators hold title also provide:
"And it is hereby further covenanted and agreed, by and between the parties to these presents, and the true intent and meaning hereof is that the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns will not build the said wharves, bulkheads, avenues or streets hereinbefore mentioned or any part thereof, or make the lands in conformity with the covenants hereinafter mentioned until permission for that purpose shall be first had and obtained from the said parties of the first part, or their successors, and will not build or erect or cause to be built or erected any wharf or pier or other obstruction in the Hudson River in front of the hereby granted premises without the permission of the said parties of the first part or their successors or assigns first had for that purpose."
In Duryea v. Mayor, etc. (62 N.Y. 592) it was said that a similar clause did not limit the right of the owners to fill the space between the streets, but on a subsequent appeal (Duryea
v. Mayor, etc., 96 N.Y. 477) it was said that the provisions of the sinking fund ordinance had not been called to the court's attention on the first appeal *Page 367 
and it was held that the council had given its consent. We are free to interpret the clause according to its meaning. To construe the ordinance and the grants as permitting the filling of the land between the streets at the will of the grantee and as prohibiting the building of the wharves and streets without the consent of the common council would be unreasonable. The lands are thus held subject to the conditions of the grant and may not be filled in without the approval of the city authorities. The power to grant permission to construct bulkheads or piers and to make land in conformity with relators' grants implies the right to withhold such permission.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
HISCOCK, Ch. J., HOGAN, CARDOZO, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.