In re Courthouse in City of New York

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtWILLARD BARTLETT
Citation216 N.Y. 489,111 N.E. 65
Decision Date04 January 1916
PartiesIn re COURTHOUSE IN CITY OF NEW YORK.

216 N.Y. 489
111 N.E. 65

In re COURTHOUSE IN CITY OF NEW YORK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 4, 1916.


Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Application by the City of New York to acquire land as a site for a new courthouse. From a final order of the Appellate Division (168 App. Div. 58,151 N. Y. Supp. 407), dismissing an appeal by Samuel Green from an order of the Supreme Court confirming the report of the commissioners of estimate and appraisal, appellant appeals. Order reversed, and case remitted.


[216 N.Y. 490]Alexander Rosenthal and George Gordon Battle, both of New York City, for appellant.

216 N.Y. 491]Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Charles J. Nehrbas, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
WILLARD BARTLETT, C. J.

This is a condemnation proceeding to acquire lands as site for the proposed new courthouse in New York City. By an order of the Supreme Court confirming the report of the commissioners of estimate and appraisal the sum of $135,000 was awarded to the appellant. He accepted payment of the award from the city, but nevertheless appealed to the Appellate Division from the order of confirmation. That court has dismissed his appeal, and he comes here.

[1][2] The learned counsel for the respondent questions our jurisdiction to review the order of dismissal. I think we have jurisdiction. By refusing to hear his appeal the Appellate Division virtually made the order of confirmation absolute. The effect upon the rights of the appellant was the same as an affirmance on the merits would have been. If this had been an action instead of a special proceeding, the proper practice would have been to enter a judgment of dismissal upon the order. Stevens v. Central National Bank of Boston, 162 N. Y. 253, 255,56 N. E. 628.[216 N.Y. 492]A special proceeding, however, regularly terminates in a final order, and this order possesses all the elements of finality. The case cited is authority for the proposition that the courts below cannot deprive this court of jurisdiction by dismissing an appeal thus leaving a judgment or final order in full force against the party claiming to be aggrieved. ‘In many cases that would have the same effect upon the rights of the parties as an affirmance.’

[3] I proceed, therefore, to review the order of dismissal. The rule is well established that in ordinary cases a party who accepts the benefit of a judgment thereby waives his right to appeal therefrom. Alexander v. Alexander, 104 N. Y. 643, 10 N. E. 37. The waiver results from the inconsistent attitude of a party who at the same time collects the amount of a judgment in his favor and appeals for the purpose of reversing that judgment. But in Matter of N. Y. & H. R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 12, 18, Judge Earl, writing for the court, said that this rule was not applicable to appeals in condemnation proceedings where the claimant seeks to question simply the amount of the award.

‘That rule is enforced because it would be inequitable and unjust to permit a party to take and hold the benefit of a decision, and yet appeal from and seek to annul it, and the reason of the rule does not apply to such a case as this. Here the city did not seek to enforce the award; it took the money awarded for the land of which it was deprived. It did not seek by the appeal to get the land back again, or to divest the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Acting Director, Dept. of Forests and Parks v. Walker, No. 28
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1974
    ...The Court of Appeals of New York, in a discriminating analysis of the opinions, held in the case of In Re Courthouse in City of New York, 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, that where appeal of the condemnee does not raise any question of the right to condemn or the right of the condemnor to retain......
  • City of Syracuse v. Gibbs
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1940
    ...limitations, conditions or restrictions fixed or the power of the Commission to impose them. ( [28 N.E.2d 841]Matter of City of New York, 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157; Matter of Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Water Power and Control Comm., supra), even though the determination ......
  • Shapiro v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, MARYLAND-NATIONAL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 2, 1964
    ...of New York, in a discriminating analysis of the opinions, held in the case of In re Courthouse in City of New York, [201 A.2d 806] 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, that where appeal of the condemnee does not raise any question of the right to condemn or the right of the condemnor to retain the l......
  • Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1949
    ...See Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank, 162 N.Y. 253, 56 N.E. 628, Id.,168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904;Matter of City of New York (New Court House), 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157;Silverstein v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 221 N.Y. 332, 117 N.E. 307; Borenstein v. Boren......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Acting Director, Dept. of Forests and Parks v. Walker, No. 28
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1974
    ...The Court of Appeals of New York, in a discriminating analysis of the opinions, held in the case of In Re Courthouse in City of New York, 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, that where appeal of the condemnee does not raise any question of the right to condemn or the right of the condemnor to retain......
  • City of Syracuse v. Gibbs
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1940
    ...limitations, conditions or restrictions fixed or the power of the Commission to impose them. ( [28 N.E.2d 841]Matter of City of New York, 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157; Matter of Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Water Power and Control Comm., supra), even though the determination ......
  • Shapiro v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, MARYLAND-NATIONAL
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 2, 1964
    ...of New York, in a discriminating analysis of the opinions, held in the case of In re Courthouse in City of New York, [201 A.2d 806] 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, that where appeal of the condemnee does not raise any question of the right to condemn or the right of the condemnor to retain the l......
  • Guar. Trust Co. of New York v. State, (Claim No. 27969).
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1949
    ...See Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank, 162 N.Y. 253, 56 N.E. 628, Id.,168 N.Y. 560, 61 N.E. 904;Matter of City of New York (New Court House), 216 N.Y. 489, 111 N.E. 65, Ann.Cas.1917D, 157;Silverstein v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 221 N.Y. 332, 117 N.E. 307; Borenstein v. Boren......
  • 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