In re City of New York
Opinion of the Court
This is a condemnation proceeding. Title to lands, including Damage Parcel No. 6, vested in the city of New York on November 4, 1931. ' The order purportedly appealed from is not in the record. The appeal in that phase must be dismissed. The final decree appealed from awards as compensation for the damage parcel six cents only. This award was made upon the finding of the Special Term that the parcel was subject to street easements, and for other reasons referred to infra.
The appellants Permanent Holding Co., Inc., and Bessie Mehl, respectively, hold first and second mortgages, respectively dated November 7, 1924, and June 16, 1924 (sic), and duly recorded. Upon these mortgages, respectively, there is due and unpaid $27,500, with interest from May 7, 1927, and $7,437.50, with interest from June 16, 1925. These mortgages before the taking covered adjoining property on the south and the major portion, but not all, of what is now Damage Parcel No. 6 herein. The appellant Naomi Kaplan holds an assignment in writing, dated December 7, 1932, of the rights of Mehl Realty Company, Inc., to the award for Damage Parcel No. 6. That corporation claimed as of the date of vesting to be the owner of the damage parcel and the whole thereof. Actually it was the owner of only the same major portion thereof, which, with such adjoining property, is covered by each of the two mortgages mentioned. Its title was subject to the liens of those mortgages.
The Special Term predicated the nominal award upon its finding that “ The former owners of the fee developed properties adjoining parcel No. 6 by building stores thereon facing upon that parcel, thereby dedicating it for street uses.” (Vide Matter of City of New York [Braddock Ave.], 278 N. Y. 163, 174.) The award of six cents
These rulings led to the nominal award in effect to the fee owner and the mortgagees jointly.
We are of opinion (a) that the learned Special Term was correct in its award of six cents only as far as the fee owner was concerned; (b) that it erred in refusing to make a substantial award to the mortgagees for that part of Damage Parcel No. 6 covered by their mortgages, payment of which award to them by the city, according to their respective rights, would result in the city’s becoming subrogated to the extent and in the manner declared in Matter of City of New York [Braddock Ave.] (supra, at p. 174); and (c) that none of the claimants-appellants has any right, title or interest in, or lien upon, the minor portion of Damage Parcel No. 6, referred to infra.
The following are facts: (1) Title to Damage Parcel No. 6 vested November 4, 1931. (2) That parcel consisted of the northerly part of a plot of land composed of five lots numbered 854 to 858, inclusive, on a map entitled “ Map of Section 3, Terminal Heights, situated in the Second Ward Boro of Queens * * filed in the office of the clerk of Queens county, February 11, 1909, as Map No. 503. (3) Thereafter there was prepared under lawful authority (Laws of 1901, chap. 466) “ Section 10 of Final Maps of the Borough of Queens,” dated August 23,1911, adopted by the board of estimate and apportionment of the city of New York November 2, 1911, and approved by the mayor November 18, 1911, on which map
In the circumstances disclosed, (a) the owner of the major portion of Damage Parcel No. 6, and hence the claimant-appellant Kaplan, the assignee of that owner’s claim to the award, was properly found entitled to a nominal award only, for the fee interest was subject to private street easements (Matter of City of New York [Northern Blvd.], 258 N. Y. 136, 152; Matter of City of New York [Decatur St.], supra; Matter of City of New York [Lorraine Ave.], 256 App. Div. 983 [2d Dept.], decided March 6, 1939); (b) there was no merger of the interest of either of the mortgagees-claimants, appellants, in the fee of Damage Parcel No. 6; (c) the claimants-mortgagees, appellants, are entitled to an award of substantial damages (Matter of City of New York [Braddock Ave.], supra) for Damage Parcel No. 6 except that portion thereof to which, as above, their mortgagor, Bysell Realty Corporation, did not have title in fee, and upon which, therefore, neither of them has a hen; upon payment of which award the city of New York will become subrogated to the rights of the mortgagees in the part of the mortgaged premises not taken, to the extent and in the manner declared in Matter of City of New York [Braddock Ave.] (supra, at p. 174); and (d) the payment of the proceeds of the fire insurance to the owner of the portion of the mortgaged property adjoining Damage Parcel No. 6, with the consent of the mortgagees, does not affect the right of the latter to such substantial award.
Therefore, (1) the appeal from the order which is not printed in the record should be dismissed. (2) The final decree appealed from should be modified by striking therefrom the award of six cents damages for Damage' Parcel No. 6, in so far as that award is made to Permanent Holding Co., Inc., and Bessie Mehl, claimants-mortgagees. As thus modified, the final decree should be affirmed, without costs, and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term with a direction to make a substantial award to the said claimants-mortgagees for the taking of such portion of Damage Parcel No. 6 as is covered by their mortgages, in accordance with
Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.
Final decree modified by striking therefrom the award of six cents damages for Parcel No. 6, in so far as that award is made to the Permanent Holding Co., Inc., and Bessie Mehl, claimants-mortgagees. As thus modified, the final decree is unanimously affirmed, without costs, and the proceeding remitted to the Special Term with a direction to make a substantial award to the said claimants-mortgagees for the taking of such portion of Damage Parcel No. 6 as is covered by their mortgages, in accordance with their interests. Upon payment of that award the city will be subrogated, to the extent of that payment, to the rights of those mortgagees in the part of the mortgaged premises not condemned but will be subordinated to the rights of the mortgagees thereir for the balance then due upon -their mortgages.
Appeal from order dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.