Ossining Urban Renewal Agency v. Lord

• Decision Date: 08 June 1976
• Citation: 350 N.E.2d 405,39 N.Y.2d 628,385 N.Y.S.2d 28
• Parties: , 350 N.E.2d 405 In the Matter of OSSINING URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent, v. Elissa LORD et al., Defendants and Pine Top Building Corp., Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 28

385 N.Y.S.2d 28

39 N.Y.2d 628, 350 N.E.2d 405

In the Matter of OSSINING URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent, v. Elissa LORD et al., Defendants and Pine Top Building Corp., Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 8, 1976.

Bernard Gartlir and Donald M. Weisberg, New York City, for appellant.

Hugh A. Lavery, Jr., and William J. Daly, Ossining, for respondent.

JASEN, Justice.

In this condemnation proceeding appellant Pine Top Building Corp., the owner of an easement in one of the parcels condemned, sought leave to intervene as a party defendant. The trial court, granting permission to Pine Top to intervene, held that its easement had been extinguished by the condemnation. The Appellate Division, 49 A.D.2d 576, 371 N.Y.S.2d 19 reversed, on the law, holding that the statement of facts submitted pursuant to CPLR 3222 was not sufficient to enable the court to determine whether the easement had been extinguished. Implicit in this holding was the view that the easement was not extinguished as a matter of law. Since we conclude that the easement was extinguished, we would reverse the order of the Appellate Division and reinstate the order of Special Term.

As indicated, the case was submitted at trial upon a stipulated set of facts, pursuant to CPLR 3222. On April 25, 1972, Elissa Lord conveyed a 13.5-acre parcel of real estate in Westchester County to appellant Pine Top. In the same deed Pine Top was also granted an easement of ingress and egress over adjacent land retained by Lord. On February 27, 1973, the Ossining Urban Renewal Agency, acting pursuant to section 555 of the General Municipal Law, filed a petition seeking, through condemnation, title in fee simple absolute to certain parcels of real property, one of which was this parcel belonging to Elissa Lord through which Pine Top's easement ran. Pine Top was not named in the petition, nor was the easement specifically excepted from the taking of the parcel.

On May 31, 1973, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the petition, ordering and adjudging that the Ossining Urban Renewal Agency was seized of this real property in fee simple absolute. Thereafter, Pine Top, claiming that this taking of Lord's property extinguished its easement, sought to intervene so as to have its claim for compensation passed upon by the Commissioners of Appraisal appointed by the trial court. The Urban Renewal Agency, opposing such intervention, claimed that Lord's property was condemned subject to the easement.

Under the 'in rem' theory of the nature of title acquired by eminent domain, the condemnor takes title to land free of all encumbrances and inconsistent proprietary rights and extinguishes all interests and estates in the property. (3 Nichols Eminent Domain (rev. 3d ed.), § 9.1(1).) ^* Justice Holmes described this concept in the following terms: 'if there is such a thing as a new title known to the law, one founded upon the taking by the right of eminent domain is as clear an example as can be found.' (Emery v. Boston Term. Co., 178 Mass. 172, 184, 59 N.E. 763, 765.) This court has expressed the same concept in similar terms: 'By the (condemnation) proceeding the real estate acquired in the proceeding was obtained entirely free from the claims of all owners including all persons having an interest therein either legal or equitable.' (Merriman v. City of New York, 227 N.Y. 279, 285, 125 N.E. 500, 502.) Thus, it has been held that a condemnation terminates mortgages liens (Merriman v. City of New York, supra; Gates v. De La Mare, 142 N.Y. 307, 37 N.E. 121; Matter of City of Rochester, 136 N.Y. 83, 32 N.E. 702), and tax liens (Matter of County of Nassau (Gelb-Siegel), 24 N.Y.2d 621, 626, 301 N.Y.S.2d 564, 567, 249 N.E.2d 426, 428; Matter of Cantro v. Comptroller of State of N.Y., 198 Misc. 925, 928, 103 N.Y.S.2d 764, 766, app. dsmd. 285 App.Div. 843, 137 N.Y.S.2d 843), as well as easements (Matter of County of...