United States v. CERTAIN LAND, ETC., Civ. 29-364.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1947
• Docket Number: Civ. 29-364.
• Citation: 71 F. Supp. 363
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CERTAIN LAND IN CITY OF POUGHKEEPSIE, COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, NEW YORK et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

71 F. Supp. 363

UNITED STATES v.CERTAIN LAND IN CITY OF POUGHKEEPSIE, COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, NEW YORK et al.

Civ. 29-364.

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 1, 1947.

Harry T. Dolan, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for petitioner-plaintiff.

William A. Mulvey, of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., for Beacon Leather Goods Co., Inc.

BRIGHT, District Judge.

This proceeding was instituted to acquire title to the fee of certain lands along the Hudson River in Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, New York, in a portion of which the defendantBeacon Leather Goods Company, Inc. is a tenant, under a lease dated August 4, 1941.That lease was made by the City of Poughkeepsie, the owner of the fee, and let the premises therein described for a term of 10 years ending on December 31, 1951, for the purpose of manufacturing handbags and other leather and fabricated leather goods.The rent to be paid was the cost of fire insurance on the leased buildings, of all liability insurance, and of water bills.The tenant agreed to make such additions, alterations, replacements and improvements upon the buildings as it should deem best and necessary, and to keep the premises in proper repair, at its sole expense; and to surrender the premises at the expiration of the lease and the improvements thereon, including the heating system, water system, toilets and every other improvement, with the exception of actual machinery used by it in the manufacture of its products; and all of said improvements at the termination of the lease, either on its expiration date or earlier, were to belong to the owner.

An order for immediate possession of the premises described in the petition was made on January 22, 1942.After the service of the petition and notice upon said defendant, it served an answer denying the right of the petitioner to condemn, and alleging as a defense its rights as a tenant and that by the condemnation and possession it "has been and will be deprived of a substantial portion of the leasehold property, causing extensive damages thereby and necessitating extensive alterations, changes, rentals of other areas and various other sundry expenses and damages by reason thereof."By stipulation that portion of its answer denying the right of the petitioner to condemn was withdrawn, and an interlocutory judgment of condemnation was filed on October 18, 1945.

Petitioner now asks for a bill of particulars setting forth in detail (1) the particular items of damage alleged to have been suffered by the defendant and for which claim is asserted, and (2) the specific amount of damages claimed for each injury or damage alleged to have been suffered.

There is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,28 U.S.C.A.followingsection 723c, for a bill of particulars such as is requested; it being provided in section 81(a)(7) that those rules are not applicable in proceedings for condemnation, except with reference to appeals.By rule 83, the District Court may from time to time make and amend rules governing its practice not inconsistent with the federal rules.By Civil Rule 34 of this court, it is provided that "Whenever a...