Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority Authority
| Decision Date | 27 April 1961 |
| Parties | , 174 N.E.2d 754 Douglas E. MATHEWSON et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904.
Residents of village brought an action against the New York State Thruway Authority to compel the Thruway Authority to prohibit the use of the Thruway by trucks, busses, and tractor-trailers through the village during the hours between 8 o'clock in the evening and 8 o'clock in the morning.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, Samuel W. Eager, J., 22 Misc.2d 410, 196 N.Y.S.2d 215, rendered an order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the motion of the village residents for temporary injunction, and the village residents and the New York State Thruway Authority appealed.
The Appellate Division, 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, reversed the order in so far as it denied the motion to dismiss the complaint, granted the motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the appeal from the order in so far as it denied the motion for a temporary injunction, and held that the complaint was insufficient, where it did not appear from the complaint that the noises emanating from the normal operation of the Thruway adversely affected the village residents, who brought the action, more than any other property owners similarly situated, or that the noises subjected the village residents, who brought the action, to a greater share of the common burden of incidental damage cast on all those living in the vicinity.
The village residents appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed, without costs upon the authority of Benz v. New York State Thruway, decided herewith.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glen v. Rockefeller
...479, 55 N.E.2d 742, 745; see also, Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority, 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754). Similarly, the Governor has been held to be free from judicial control in the performance of executive powers and his acts......
-
Dennison v. State, 42368
...on the highway. (See, e.g., Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Auth., 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, (2d Dept.), affd. 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754; Bennett v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 181 N.Y. 431, 74 N.E. 418; Nunnally v. United States, 239 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.).) Therefore, a......
-
Celebrity Studios, Inc. v. Civetta Excavating Inc.
...of their property has been taken. Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority, 11 A.D.2d 728, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754; Bennett v. Long Island Railroad Co., 181 N.Y. 431, 74 N.E. 418; Nunnally v. United States, 239 F.2d 521. The observation of ......
-
City of New York v. Blum
...a variety of cases from 1893 (Stone v. State, 138 N.Y. 124, 130, 33 N.E. 733, 734-735) to 1961 (Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority, 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754) suggesting that this Court does Not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a municipality challengi......