Ramapo Mountains Water Power & Service Co. v. Seidler
Opinion of the Court
In Ramapo Mountains Water Power & Service Company, Inc., v. Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, 177 App. Div. 700, the Appellate Division of this department decided that the filing by the plaintiff of its maps and plans and its application to the conservation commission gave it no priority of right over the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, to the acquisition of the lands shown and described upon its said maps and plans. It seems to me necessarily to follow therefrom that the lands involved in-this proceeding which were acquired by the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park prior to the commencement of this condemnation proceeding, cannot now be acquired by the plaintiff by condemnation. The judgment of the Appellate Division in the case just cited and its reversal of the temporary injunction against the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park gave said commissioners the right to acquire by purchase or otherwise the premises described in the petition, or any part thereof, at any time prior to the commencement of this proceeding, and that the plaintiff cannot maintain this proceeding with respect to such premises as were purchased by said commissioners.
It is also my opinion that with respect to the lands described in the petition and now sought to be acquired by the plaintiff that were not acquired by the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, the plaintiff'
The result of it all is that the bulk or greater part of the lands and sources of water supply upon which the plaintiff relied for the execution of its plans were taken from it before the commencement of this proceeding, by the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, by purchases, which the Appellate Division
It seems to me that it will be necessary for the plaintiff to revise its plans, or make entirely new ones, and make a new application to the conservation commission, because it does not satisfactorily appear that its present plan and design can be accomplished by the acquisition of the lands which in this proceeding it is entitled to condemn; and I think that the right of eminent domain cannot be exercised in favor of a plan or scheme to serve the public which is not feasible or practical. For this reason alone, I decide that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this proceeding with respect to the lands that had not been acquired by the commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park prior to the commencement of this proceeding, and that this proceeding must be dismissed with respect to the lands previously acquired by said commissioners for the reason already stated. Upon all other objections urged by the defendants to the plaintiff’s proceeding, I find in the plaintiff’s favor.
Judgment accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.