In re Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park

Decision Date29 October 1915
Citation216 N.Y. 104,110 N.E. 260
PartiesIn re COMMISSIONERS OF PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Application of the Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park for the condemnation of lands situate in the County of Rockland. From an order of the Appellate Division (166 App. Div. 443, 151 N. Y. Supp. 977) reversing an order which authorized and permitted the Commissioners to abandon and discontinue the proceeding to condemn certain lands in Rockland County as against the Haverstraw Crushed Stone Company and others, and vacating so much of an order as confirmed the report of the Commissioners of appraisement, the Park Commissioners, by permission, appeal on a certified question of law. Order affirmed, and question certified in the negative.

See, also, 168 App. Div. 927, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1105.

Appeal by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered April 23, 1915, reversing an order of the Westchester Special Term which authorized and permitted the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park to abandon and discontinue a proceeding to condemn certain lands in Rockland county, as against the Haverstraw Crushed Stone Company, Clinton Point Stone Company, and the New York Trap Rock Company, and which also vacated and set aside so much of an order of the Westchester Special Term, entered January 16, 1914, as ratified, approved, and confirmed the report of commissioners of appraisement in said proceeding.

The question of law which the order granting permission to appeal to this court certified as one which ought to be reviewed by this court is: “Had the court below at Special Term the power to make the order appealed from?”

The commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park were appointed pursuant to chapter 170 of the Laws of 1900. By such act they have power and authority to acquire lands by eminent domain, and they have such further power and authority as is granted to them by said act and the amendments thereto. Laws of 1906, c. 691; Laws of 1910, c. 361. A proceeding was commenced by them in 1912 to acquire certain lands for park purposes in the county of Rockland, and the owners of the fee of said lands and the respondents as owners of leasehold interest therein were made parties to such proceeding. Commissioners of appraisement were appointed in said proceeding as provided by the act, and they awarded an amount as stated in their report to the owners of the fee, and to the respondents Haverstraw Crushed Stone Company, lessee, $210,000, and to Clinton Point Stone Company, lessee, $41,235. Said commissioners applied to the Special Term of Westchester County to confirm said report, and the owners of the fee of said property sought to be condemned and said respondents opposed such confirmation. An order was entered on the 16th day of January, 1914, confirming said report. From such order the owners of the fee and the respondents herein appealed. Thereafter and before the hearing of said appeals, the respondents pursuant to an order of the Appellate Division duly made upon notice, severally withdrew their appeals and immediately thereafter demanded of said commissioners payment of the awards made to them respectively by the appraisers. The commissioners thereupon applied to said Special Term for leave to abandon and discontinue the proceeding as against the respondents and the New York Trap Rock Company. The Special Term granted the order as prayed for by the commissioners upon their paying to the owners of said leasehold interests the costs and allowances theretofore granted to them and their counsel, together with a fair allowance for services upon the hearing provided for by the order, and also for the loss which they will sustain from the abandonment and discontinuance thereof.

By the order a referee was appointed to ascertain the amount of damages which each of the lessees will sustain and report to the court the proofs taken by him together with his opinion thereon.

Prior to the Special Term making the order permitting the commissioners to abandon and discontinue the proceeding as against the respondents, the Appellate Division had heard the appeal of the owners of the fee and had affirmed the order of the Special Term confirming the report of the commissioners of appraisement.

Edward W. Hatch, of New York City, for appellants.

Charles F. Brown, of New York City, for respondent Haverstraw Crushed Stone Co. Delevan A. Holmes, of New York City, for respondent Clinton Point Stone Co.

CHASE, J, (after stating the facts as above).

The commissioners have not abandoned their determination to take the fee of the property described in their petition commencing this proceeding, but for economic reasons stated in the papers on which they applied for the order of October 23, 1914, sought to abandon and discontinue the proceeding as against the respondents and thus allow them to continue in possession of their leasehold rights during the remainder of the terms under their leases respectively. No fraud, mistake, misconduct, irregularity, judicial error, or inequity in the proceeding is claimed. The commissioners after voluntarily applying to the court to confirm the report of the appraisers and obtaining such confirmation simply “changed their minds.” It would appear therefore that no reason exists for setting aside the order of confirmation which is recognized by statute (Code of Civil Procedure, § 724) or by the Supreme Court as inherent in its general jurisdiction.

No express authority is given to the commissioners by the act under which they were appointed, to discontinue a proceeding commenced to acquire real property. It is claimed by the respondents that section 3374 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so far as it relates to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Terrace Hotel Co. v. State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 Mayo 1966
    ...p. 840; 30 Am.Jur., Interference, § 39.) There may be a taking if the deprivation of use was too long (see Matter of Comrs. of Palisades Interstate Park, 216 N.Y. 104, 110 N.E. 260, L.R.A.1916C, 641), but such is not a tort. Trespass was not committed because there was no physical intrusion......
  • Kahlen v. State
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Mayo 1918
    ...102 Atl. 321), but it is powerless to say that after the taking is complete there can be no recovery. Matter of Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park, 216 N. Y. 104, 110 N. E. 260, L. R. A. 1916C, 641. No conflict in principle arises in the reported cases, although the conclusions reac......
  • Lafayette Hotel Co. v. Erie County
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 30 Septiembre 1960
    ...Land Corp. v. Long Island State Park Commission, 243 N.Y. 15, 24, 152 N.E. 451, 453. The case of Matter of Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park, 216 N.Y. 104, 110 N.E 260, L.R.A.1916C, 641, cited by the plaintiff is distinguishable because there, 'No express authority is given to the ......
  • Minesta Realty Co. v. State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 11 Marzo 1968
    ...of Corporation Counsel of City of New York (Attorney St.), 186 App.Div. 669, 174 N.Y.S. 816). (See also Matter of Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park, 216 N.Y. 104, 110 N.E. 260, L.R.A. 1916C, 641; Matter of City of Syracuse (Sewage Disposal Works), 224 N.Y. 201, 120 N.E. 203). What ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT