Higgins v. Nicholson

Headnote

New York city — ■street closing — -mandamus to compel corporation counsel to institute proceedings to compensate property owners for closing of streets properly denied.

Matter of Higgins v. Nicholson, 218 App. Div. 751 , affirmed.

Matter of Rollar v. Nicholson, 216 App. Div. 752 , affirmed.

Matter of Estate of Johnson, 216 App. Div. 752 , affirmed.

Appeal, in each of the above-entitled proceedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 26, 1926, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the corporation counsel of the city of New York to institute proceedings pursuant to chapter 1006 of the Laws of 1895, and the acts amendatory thereof, for the ascertainment and determination of the compensation which should justly be made to petitioner for damages caused by the alleged closing and discontinuance of former Twelfth avenue from the southerly line of West Forty-second street to the northerly line of West Fifty-first street, and the alleged closing and discontinuance of West Forty-second, Forty-third, Forty-fourth, Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, Forty-seventh, Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth and Fiftieth streets, from the westerly line of new Twelfth avenue to the bulkhead line, as shown on map dated June 20, 1916, adopted by the board of estimate and apportionment and approved by the mayor on July 27,1916, and duly filed in accordance with law on Septem

ber 25, 1916, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York. The motion was denied on the ground that Twelfth ayenue and the named intersecting streets were not discontinued and closed.

Order in each proceeding affirmed, with costs;