Haines v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Citation | 41 N.Y.2d 769,364 N.E.2d 820,396 N.Y.S.2d 155 |
| Parties | , 364 N.E.2d 820 Frederick R. HAINES, on behalf of himself and all other property owners in the Town of Hunter, similarly situated, Respondent, and Town of Hunter et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Stephen P. Kramer, L. Kevin Sheridan and Alexander Gigante, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Louis M. Weber, New York City, for respondent.
Charles J. Brown, Windham, and Anthony C. Bucca, Tannersville, for intervenors-respondents.
In the early 1920's, respondent City of New York and intervenors Town of Hunter and Village of Tannersville embarked upon negotiations for the construction of a sewage system to serve the village and a portion of the town. These negotiations were prompted by the city's need and desire to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage by residents of the area into Gooseberry Creek, a stream which fed a reservoir of the city's water supply system in the Schoharie watershed.
In 1923, the Legislature enacted enabling legislation authorizing the city to enter into contracts with municipalities in the watershed area "for the purpose of providing, maintaining (and) operating systems and plants for the collection and disposal of sewage" (L.1923, ch. 630, § 1). The statute further provided that any such contracts would be subject to the approval of the New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment.
The negotiations culminated in an agreement in 1924 between the city and intervenors. By this agreement, the city assumed the obligation of constructing a sewage system consisting of a sewage disposal plant and sewer mains and laterals, and agreed that "all costs of construction and subsequent operation, maintenance and repair of said sewerage system with the house connections thereof and said disposal works shall be at the expense" of the city. The agreement also required the city to extend the sewer lines when "necessitated by future growth and building constructions of the respective communities". The village and town were obligated to and did obtain the necessary easements for the construction of the system and sewage lines.
The Board of Estimate, on December 9, 1926, approved the agreement and authorized the issuance of $500,000 of "corporate stock" of the City of New York for construction of the system by appropriate resolution. It is interesting to here note that a modification of the original agreement occurred in 1925 wherein the village agreed to reimburse the city for a specified amount representing the expense of changing the location of certain sewer lines. The plant was completed and commenced operation in 1928. The city has continued to maintain the plant through the ensuing years and in 1958 expended $193,000 to rehabilitate and expand the treatment plant and facilities.
Presently, the average flow of the plant has increased from an initial figure of 118,000 gallons per day to over 600,000 gallons daily and the trial court found that the plant "was operating substantially in excess of design capacity". The city asserts, and it is not disputed by any of the parties in this action, that the system cannot bear any significant additional "loadings" because this would result in inadequate treatment of all the sewage and consequently harm the city's water supply. The instant controversy arose when plaintiff, who is the owner of a tract of unimproved land which he seeks to develop into 50 residential lots, applied to the city for permission to connect houses, which he intends to construct on the lots, to existing sewer lines. The city refused permission on the ground that it had no obligation to further expand the plant, which is presently operating at full capacity, to accommodate this new construction.
Plaintiff then commenced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, in which intervenors town and village joined as plaintiffs, maintaining that the 1924 agreement is perpetual in duration and obligates the city to expend additional capital funds to enlarge the existing plant or build a new one to accommodate the present and future needs of the municipalities. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division, by a divided court, held in favor of plaintiff and intervenors concluding, that, while the contract did not call for perpetual performance, the city was bound to construct additional facilities to meet increased demand until such time as the village or town is legally obligated to maintain a sewage disposal system. Two members of the court dissented in part stating that the agreement should not be construed as requiring the city to construct new or additional facilities.
We conclude that the city is presently obligated to maintain the existing plant but is not required to expand that plant or construct any new facilities to accommodate plaintiff's substantial, or any other, increased demands on the sewage system. The initial problem encountered in ascertaining the nature and extent of the city's obligation pursuant to the 1924 agreement, is its duration. We reject, as did the courts below, the plaintiff's contention that the city is perpetually bound under the agreement. The contract did not expressly provide for perpetual performance and both the trial court and the Appellate Division found that the parties did not so intend. Under these circumstances, the law will not imply that a contract calling for continuing performance is perpetual in duration (Mitler v. Freideberg, 32 Misc.2d 78, 85, 222 N.Y.S.2d 480, 488; Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co. v. John J. Reynolds, Inc., 178 F.Supp. 655, affd. 2 Cir., 280 F.2d 197; Holt v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 4 Cir., 52 F.2d 1068,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Yonkers v. Otis Elevator Co.
...by what a jury finds the duration of Otis' obligations to be. See, e.g., Pl.Memo at 3, 53-60. Nor do Haines v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 769, 364 N.E.2d 820, 396 N.Y.S.2d 155 (1977); Barco Urban Renewal Corp. v. Housing Authority, etc., 674 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir.1982); or Wood v. Lucy, Lady D......
-
In Re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practice Litigation. Class
...facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Id. 603 N.Y.S.2d 821, 623 N.E.2d at 1172; see also Haines v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 769, 396 N.Y.S.2d 155, 364 N.E.2d 820, 822-23 (1977) (“In the absence of an express term fixing the duration of a contract, the courts may inquire into t......
-
Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Brightstar Corp.
...the principle to determine a reasonable fee for the compensation of services rendered); see also Haines v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 769, 772, 396 N.Y.S.2d 155, 364 N.E.2d 820 (1977) ("In the absence of an express term fixing the duration of a contract, the courts may inquire into the int......
-
Bergamini v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
...v. Gugino, 204 N.Y. 535, 98 N.E. 18; Parker v. Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577, 156 N.E.2d 297; Haines v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 769, 396 N.Y.S.2d 155, 364 N.E.2d 820; see also Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438 (2nd Cir.1980). The presence of these factors......