In re Grade Crossing Commissioners
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent. It appears from the testimony of the witnesses . and from the opinion of the commissioners that a considerable part of the $5,000 award to the owners of parcel No. 2 is for damage to that parcel because, after the railroad tracks are depressed, it will not be possible to run a private switch track from the railroad across the intervening lands to this property. Eespondent’s lot does not abut upon the railroad right of way
The order appealed from, so far as it confirms the award to respondent in respect of parcel No. 2, should be reversed and such award vacated, and the proceeding remitted to the same commissioners to make a new award, allowing no damages for loss of a possible private switch track from the railroad across intervening land to respondent’s lot, with separate bills of costs of this appeal to. each appellant appearing separately.
McLennan, P. J., concurred.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Opinion of the Court
In. eliminating the grade crossing of the New York Central Belt Line at Main street, in the city of Buffalo, it became necessary to change the grade of the street. The tracks were depressed about twenty-five feet and a viaduct constructed, carrying the street over the railroad. Commissioners were appointed in this proceeding to ascertain the compensation to' be made to the owners of the lands for damages resulting from that improvement. The award for parcel 2 is challenged by this appeal as excessive. That parcel has a, frontage of about one hundred and eighty feet on Main street, extending to a point twenty-one and one-half feet from the railroad right of way. The change of the street grade immediately in front of the premises is slight; but it is contended that the grade crossing improvement as a whole has seriously lessened the value of the premises.
Before the improvement there was a switch track extending to Main street. That has been removed and, even if relaid in the cut, it would be inaccessible from Main street or from the lands adjoining the railroad. The owner contends that before the changes were made the lands were well adapted for industrial purposes and that their value has been materially lessened by cutting off the shipping facilities at this point.
• That view is supported by testimony and the appraisal com-. missioners who were made acquainted with the conditions seem to have taken the same view; although their award is much less than the amount of the damages fixed by the experts.
In determining the amount of damages • under the Grade Crossing Act (Laws, of 1888, chap. 345, as amd.), where there has been, a change of grade in front of adjoining premises, the improvement as a whole must be considered, and if the value of the adjoining premises has been diminished thereby, the owner is entitled to all of the damages resulting therefrom. (Matter of Grade Crossing Commissioners, 6 App. Div. 327.) It is argued here, as it was in the case of Matter of Grade Crossing Commissioners (59 App, Div. 498; affd., 168 N. Y. 659), that no damages are recoverable resulting from the depression of the ■ track, eliminating switching
While the award seems large, I think in view of the advantage which the commissioners had ■ in determining that question, we would hardly be justified in setting it aside. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Foote, J., who dissented in an opinion by Foote, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.