United States v. 531/4 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN, KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK, N-494.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. N-494.,N-494. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 53¼ ACRES OF LAND, etc., BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN, KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Harry T. Dolan, Sp. Asst. to the U. S. Atty. Gen. (Edward H. Murphy, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-plaintiff.
Parsons, Closson & McIlvaine, of New York City (Ellwood Thomas and William M. Sperry, II, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal.
William C. Chanler, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (Julius Isaacs and Charles Bisberg, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant City of New York.
Nathan L. Goldstein, of New York City, for various defendants.
Raymond A. Waldman, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant, Max Fine.
The Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, one of the defendants in this proceeding, has made a motion for an order directing the clerk of this court to pay the sum of $700,000 to it on account of the just compensation claimed for the taking of its property in the said proceeding.
The pleadings indicate that on April 1, 1941, a petition and notice of condemnation was filed in this court wherein the petitioner-plaintiff sought to acquire in fee simple certain property in the Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings and State of New York, consisting of approximately 53¼ acres, commonly known and referred to as "Wallabout Market". Simultaneously, a declaration of taking was filed in this court, pursuant to Section 258A of Title 40, U.S.C.A. Act of February 26, 1931, Ch. 307, § 1, 46 Stat. 1421, and a judgment on said declaration of taking was duly made and entered on April 3, 1941. Title in fee simple to the property in question, therefore, vested in the United States of America.
At the time of the filing of the declaration and petition, the sum of $4,000,000 was deposited in the registry of this court, which represented the estimated just compensation and fair value of the property taken. Out of this fund, the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, by the present motion, now seeks to have paid to it on account of the just compensation claimed for the taking of its property, the sum of $700,000.
The City of New York, one of the defendants herein, has interposed opposition to this motion. It appears that there is in existence an agreement between the City of New York and the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal which created certain rights or interests which the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal may have or may have had in and to the property taken. The City of New York claims that by reason of the agreement, the defendant, Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, has no valid claim to compensation as a result of the taking and is not entitled to any share in or distribution of the funds now on deposit in this proceeding, referring specifically to paragraph marked "21" of the agreement in question.
The fact is uncontradicted that the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal removed a considerable part of the property for which it seeks compensation after the area was acquired by the petitioner-plaintiff. For that reason, the City of New York claims that it constitutes no part of the property taken and for which compensation must be made.
The motion is further opposed on the ground that the theory of valuation employed by the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal in arriving at a figure representing just compensation for its property is fanciful, speculative, hypothetical and erroneous.
The petitioner-plaintiff has reserved its rights to oppose the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal v. City of New York
...the Court shall seem just and proper." The court first ordered a hearing to consider the nature of the interest created by the agreement, 42 F.Supp. 746, and later, after taking testimony on the preliminary issues thus created, determined that petitioner had no interest in the land, but onl......
-
United States v. 531/4 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion. 1 See United States v. 53¼ Acres of Land, etc., D.C., 40 F.Supp. 348; Id., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 746; Id. D.C., 47 F. Supp. 887; Id., D.C., 48 F.Supp. 764; Id., D.C., 71 F.Supp. 248; Id., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 244; Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal......
-
United States v. 150.29 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...and other charges, if any, as shall be just and equitable." This provision was relied upon by the court in United States v. 53¼ Acres of Land, etc., D.C.N.Y., 42 F.Supp. 746, as giving it ample authority to direct a pretrial of issues almost identical to those presented here. Although not c......