In re Knaust

• Decision Date: 19 January 1886
• Citation: 4 N.E. 338,101 N.Y. 188
• Parties: In re KNAUST, etc.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

101 N.Y. 188

4 N.E. 338

In re KNAUST, etc.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Filed January 19, 1886.

Mr. Deering, for appellant.

Mr. Dean, for respondent.

DANFORTH, J.

At special term the petitioner succeeded, but the general term reversed the decision there made, and he now appeals to this court, alleging two grounds of error: First, ‘the absence of any ordinance of the common council authorizing the improvement’ in question; and, second, ‘that the work was not done by contract let after public bidding.’ There questions were before the court in Re Walter, 75 N. Y. 354, upon the same assessment, but the case was determined upon other propositions, and these were not passed upon. They are, however, insufficient to sustain this appeal.

The act of 1866, c. 367, § 1, made it the duty of the commissioners of Central park to lay out and establish the grade of an avenue to be called ‘St. Nicholas,’ empowered them to extend and widen Manhattan street, and, whenever they should deem it necessary, ‘fix and establish or change the grade of any street or avenue, or any part of any street or avenue, that intersects any street, road, or avenue required by law to be laid out, established, regulated, or improved by them, or under their direction.’ They were also directed (section 3 of same act) to make and file maps of surveys of the avenue, and of the widening and extension of Manhattan street, showing its width, location, and grade. Section 4 makes these maps and surveys final and conclusive in respect to the matters referred to, ‘as well in respect to the mayor, alderman, and commonalty of the city of New York, as in respect to the owners and occupants' of lands affected thereby, and ‘in respect to all persons whomsoever.’ Section 7 of the same act declares that ‘the said commissioners of the Central park shall, with respect to the avenue to be laid out by them, as required by this act, and with respect to that portion of Seventh avenue lying north of the Central park, in said city, and with respect to all streets, avenues, roads, and portions of said city required by law to be laid out or improved under the direction of the said commissioners, and the laying out, grading, regulating, sewering, paving, and improving the same, possess all the powers and perform all the duties now or heretofore possessed, enjoyed, or exercised by such commissioners in respect to the Central park, in the said city, and by the mayor, alderman, and commonalty of the city of New York, and the several departments of the said city, in relation to the said streets, avenues, and similar improvements thereof in other parts of said city;’ and enacts that ‘it shall be lawful for the said commissioners to do all the work required to be done by them, by days' work, or by contract, or in such manner as they shall deem expedient.’

In Walter's Case, supra, it appeared that the whole work on Manhattan street, including paving for which the assessment in question was made, was covered by a single resolution of the department of public parks, passed on the second of May, 1871, for the regulating, grading, paving, and improving Manhattan street from Twelfth avenue to Avenue St. Nicholas. That resolution was said to be ‘the acknowledged source of authority for the work’ and it was all done under the direction of that department and its successor, the department of public works. Such is the case here. The resolution at the bottom of the proceedings is that of the commissioners referred to in the Walter Case, and, under it, the work was done partly by contract, and partly by the day. It was completed by the department of public works, to which the powers of the Central park commissioners were transferred. Laws 1870, c. 383, § 16; Laws 1872, c. 872, § 7. The language of the act of 1866, above quoted, is so plain and comprehensive as to permit no other construction than that given to it by the commissioners. The power granted in respect to the improvement was exclusive of that of any other body, and the manner of doing it is left to their discretion. As to both matters their authority was ample.

Deering's Case, 85 N. Y. 11, referred to by the appellant, has no application. The avenue, to the improvement of which the proceedings...