Court Opinion

ID: 3616551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:59:30.47909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:45:37.207627
License: Public Domain

This is one of a large number of cases brought against the defendant railroad companies to recover damages for the erection of the steel viaduct in Park avenue, extending from near 106th street to the Harlem river, and over which the defendants operate their railroad with some two hundred trains a day.
The plaintiff recovered three thousand dollars fee damages and fourteen hundred dollars rental damages from February 16th, 1897, to October 10th, 1900, which was the date of the trial. The former date, February 16th, 1897, is the day on which the defendant companies began running their trains. The judgment of the Appellate Division was entered on the 29th day of April, 1901.
The case of Fries against these defendants was not decided in this court until December 31st, 1901. (169 N.Y. 270.)
The plaintiff appealed from the judgment on the ground *Page 558 
that he was limited in his recovery by an improper rule as to the measure of damages, the court holding that he was not entitled to recover damages prior to February 16th, 1897, the day the steel viaduct was completed.
The counsel for the defendants also appeals, contending that our decision in the Fries case is conclusive as to all questions presented in the case at bar, and nothing remains to be decided.
The counsel for the plaintiff attempts to distinguish these cases as follows: (1) That in the Fries case there was a finding that the defendants had "acquired the right, without liability to the plaintiff, to have, maintain and use their railroad and railroad structures as the same were maintained and used prior to February 16th, 1897," and in the case at bar there is no such finding; (2) that Fourth or Park avenue, in front of the premises in suit, was a public street prior to the defendants' entry into the same.
(The premises involved are situated at the northwesterly corner of Park avenue and 115th street, and the viaduct structure of iron and steel in front of these premises is about 59 feet wide, and consists of four tracks laid on a steel structure, having a mean elevation of about 31 feet above the surface of said avenue. Prior to the erection of this viaduct, the tracks in the subway were at the south line of the plaintiff's premises, about level with the surface of the avenue, and at the north line about five and one-half feet below it. This subway was completed and trains began to be operated in it in 1878); (3) that in the Fries case the act of 1892 was assumed to be constitutional, and in this case its constitutionality is controverted; (4) that the rule ofdamnum absque injuria has no application to this case.
The plaintiff contends that Fourth avenue was a public street at the time the Harlem Railroad Company, which is the lessor of the Central and Hudson, was organized.
Twenty-four feet of Fourth avenue, as it was then called, in front of the premises in question, were conveyed to the city July 24th, 1827, by Poillon. *Page 559 
In January, 1832 (the Harlem Railroad Company having been incorporated in 1831), Poillon conveyed to the Harlem Railroad Company 24 feet in Fourth avenue, but at that time he had nothing to convey; he also refers in that conveyance to, and sanctions the map of New York, filed by the commissioners in 1811 under the act of 1807.
So far as these premises are concerned, it would seem as if the only right the Harlem Railroad Company acquired in the street, if any, was a prescriptive one, that would be no broader than its actual occupation. (Lewis Case, 162 N.Y. 202.)
It is true that Poillon's deed to the city was never recorded, but this was not essential in order to create a highway. (Driggs v. Phillips, 103 N.Y. 77.) Furthermore, the Harlem Railroad Company could not be regarded as a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and under the provisions of its charter and its agreement with the city, and the ordinance of the board of aldermen following the agreement, it would seem to have entered upon Fourth avenue under all the restrictions in these various documents contained, and was in no sense the exclusive owner of the fee of the street, getting title from a private grantor.
The charter of the company is found in the Laws of 1831. The agreement bears date January 9th, 1832, and the ordinance was passed by the board of aldermen on January 20th, 1832.
In less than twenty years after any of these dates the city began condemnation proceedings to widen Fourth avenue, which was then 100 feet wide, and it was proposed to add twenty feet on each side, which was condemned, and the 100 feet, representing the old street, was marked "ceded." It does, however, appear in some of these litigations that a decree of condemnation went in form against the Harlem Railroad Company as to the portion of the street occupied by it, declaring a condemnation in consideration of one dollar. This report was confirmed sometime in the year 1850.
The changes in Fourth avenue, as it was then called, and the railroad structure under the act of 1872, resulted in a new *Page 560 
state of affairs as to the grade of the tracks, both on viaducts and in cuts, which were not completed until 1878. It, therefore, follows that the contention of the defendants, as to undisputed title in the avenue, in front of the plaintiff's premises, cannot be maintained.
The claim that the act of 1892 is unconstitutional cannot be sustained.
If it be true that the defendants have no legal right, by reason of grant or prescription, to erect this steel viaduct to the height of 31 feet in front of the premises in question, the effect of the act of 1892 is simply, as in the elevated railroad cases, to authorize the construction of this viaduct structure in the avenue, subject to the rights of abutting owners, to the extent that their easements of light, air and access have been invaded.
The mere fact that the act does not provide for compensation has no controlling effect. The legislative sanction to construct what would otherwise be a nuisance in a public street does not imply the power to take the easements of abutting owners, which are property, without compensation.
The fundamental error in the Fries case is the assumption that the doctrine of damnum absque injuria is applicable.
In the prevailing opinion in that case the learned judge said: "So we have the case of a change of grade in a street, which necessitated a change in the location of the railroad tracks, all made under a valid statute, and that alone is said to constitute the alleged trespass."
If this statement was correct, it would be too clear for argument that the doctrine of damnum absque injuria would apply to this case.
The fact is that there was no change of the grade in Park avenue. The title of chapter 339 of the Laws of 1892 reads: "An act to regulate, improve and enlarge Park avenue above 106th street in the city of New York, and providing for the passage of intersecting streets, under the railroad structure of the New York and Harlem Railroad Company, and for the elevation of saidrailroad structure, and for *Page 561 changing the grade of said railroad, and for the construction of a new railroad bridge at an increased elevation over the Harlem river, and providing for all changes in any avenues, streets or railroads that may be necessary by reason of suchchange in structure and grade and increased elevation of bridge,
and for other purposes."
It is profitable at this point to consider in detail the history of this act.
The Federal government determined to raise the height of the bridge which was in use by the railroad companies. The state of New York, as in duty bound, passed this act in question to carry out the change which Congress had decided should take place.
This act in brief directed that the grade of the Harlem Railroad Company's track should be raised between 106th street and the Harlem river. This was done in order to accommodate it to the new bridge.
The mayor of the city of New York was authorized by section thirteen to appoint a board to be known as "The Board of the Park Avenue Improvement above 106th street," whose duty it was to execute contracts and superintend the construction of said improvement. Upon the completion of the work the counsel to the corporation of the city of New York was required by section sixteen to apply to the Special Term of the Supreme Court in the first department for the appointment of commissioners to determine the area of assessment to raise money to pay for the bonds to be issued by the city in payment of its share of the work.
The act provided that the city of New York should pay one-half and the railroad company the other half of the cost of this work if it did not exceed a million five hundred thousand dollars; if it exceeded that amount the railroad company was to pay the entire excess.
As I understand the Fries case, the majority of the court held (1) that this was work of a public nature, and that the railroad company was not liable for injury to the easements of light, air and access unless there was a want of skill, or *Page 562 
negligence, in the performance of the work; (2) that the principles of law relating to the change of grade of streets, when lawfully made, are applicable to this situation, and that the doctrine involved in the elevated railroad cases has no application.
The act upon its face shows that the legislature did not consider it was providing for a public work for which the state was to be liable. The provision that a small portion of the city and the railroad company shall pay between them the cost of this work, and if it exceeded a certain sum the excess should be paid by the railroad company, is conclusive evidence that it does not contemplate a public work, inflicting damages which can only be recovered under a special provision of law, or by showing negligence or want of skill in the performance thereof.
The raising of the bridge by act of Congress contemplated, it is reasonable to suppose, the making of the navigable tide waters of the Harlem river accessible to vessels of greater draught, with taller masts and smokestacks, thereby benefiting the city of New York and incidentally the great railroad corporations using this bridge, they being interested in the growing prosperity of the municipality and the improved facilities for entering the city of New York by land and water.
These considerations and the details of the act already referred to, lead me to the conclusion that this work was not of the character assumed by the prevailing opinions in the Fries
case. If it were of that character, then it was unjust, and even unconstitutional for the legislature to have imposed any portion of the cost of this work upon the railroad corporations and a small section of the city of New York included in an area of assessment to be fixed by commissioners.
We thus have a situation presented similar to that in the elevated railroad cases, to wit: An elevated structure in the center of a public street, extending in places to the height of thirty-one feet, for the express purpose of elevating the railroad tracks so as to connect with the new bridge. *Page 563 
In my opinion to hold that the act of 1892 provides for raising the grade of Park avenue, is judicial legislation, and introduced in the Fries case a fact not disclosed by the act itself, and not discussed at our bar when that case was argued.
These cases present a situation covered by the case ofReining v. N.Y., L.  W. Ry. Co. (128 N.Y. 157). While the case cited does not present facts similar to the one at bar, yet the principle involved is precisely the same.
It was there held that a municipality could not, under the guise of exercising the power to alter the grade of a street, appropriate a part of the street practically to the exclusive use of a railroad company and cut off abutting owners without compensation from using any part of it in the accustomed way. In other words, this was a limitation of the power of the common council conferred upon it by the legislature in the city charter of Buffalo.
Judge ANDREWS, in applying the law of elevated railroad cases, as laid down in the Story case, said: "It is no longer open to debate in this State that owners of lots abutting on a street, the fee of which is in the municipality for street uses, although they have no title to the soil, are nevertheless entitled to the benefit of the street in front of their premises for access and other purposes, of which they cannot be deprived except upon compensation."
It was expressly held in the case cited that the erection of an embankment in the street, and running parallel therewith, and occupied by a railroad company, was not a change of the grade of the street.
That the legitimate change of the grade of a street, to the damage of abutting lot owners, is damage without injury, is the settled law of this state, but it involves a principle that has been condemned in many jurisdictions, and the hardship of which has been cured in some of the states by constitutional amendment providing for the payment of such damages. It is a doctrine which ought not to be extended.
I am of opinion that the law controlling the elevated railroad *Page 564 
cases is applicable here and that the decision in the Fries
case reversed a rule of property under which millions of dollars have been paid out by the elevated railroad companies to abutting owners who had no title to the street.
The New York and Harlem Railroad Company is not vested with any title in Park avenue that permits it as the owner of real estate to erect this elevated structure without regard to the injury it may work upon the easements of light, air and access enjoyed by abutting owners. They must settle for damages caused by so much of the structure as exceeds established user.
In several of the cases now before us it appears that the city received a conveyance of the fee before the railroad company took the deeds from grantors, who practically had nothing to convey. In another case there is a title under condemnation proceedings against an infant in 1830, presumably securing to the railroad company the right to operate its road on the strip twenty-four feet wide.
The details of the railroads' title were carefully and elaborately examined in the Lewis Case (supra).
I am of opinion that this invasion of the easements of abutting owners has vested in them a valid claim against the railroad company, and if this court adheres to its decision to the contrary, on the ground that it was a public work ordered by the state, then these damages are a valid claim against the state.
I have no disposition to urge, unduly, the reconsideration of the principles of law laid down in the Fries case. I understand that the court desires a full and free discussion of this entire question. I shall be content, if a result is reached in these cases adverse to the plaintiff, so long as I place myself on record as dissenting, on the ground that it reverses the Lewis
case and adopts a principle that is at war with the long line of decisions in the elevated railroad cases and the established law of the state.
If this judgment is reversed it should be without costs.
I vote for affirmance. *Page 565