Majority
Headnote
Municipal Corporations—Streets—Alterations—Change op Plans for Alterations.The judgments appealed from direct the removal of an obstruction in course of erection in front of plaintiffs’ premises. Section 66, c. 242, p. 500, Laws 1906 (defendant’s charter), provides that:
“The territory within the corporation limits of said village is hereby declared a separate road district exempt from the jurisdiction and superintendence of the commissioners of highways of the town of Ossining, and the trustees of said village shall be commissioners of highways for the same, and for such purposes shall possess and have all the powers possessed by commissioners of highways of towns, under article 4 of chapter 568 of the Laws of 1890, known as chapter 19 of the general laws, and the several acts amendatory thereof, so far as the same can be made applicable thereto, and the clerk of said village shall possess and perform all the powers and duties of the town clerk therein.”
Section 70 of the charter provides that:
"Five resident freeholders may present to the board of trustees a petition for laying out, altering, widening, narrowing or discontinuing a street in the village.”
A petition was presented to"the president and board of trustees conforming to the provisions of this section on July Í6, 1907, asking for “the alteration or widening and change of alignment of a portion of Secor Road, in said village, in the particulars hereinafter mentioned, and closing of Main street at its intersection with the west side of Secor Road in said village,” and containing a description of the proposed change, which contemplated taking a s’trip of land belonging to plaintiffs on the north side of said road. Upon presentation of the petition a notice of hearing was appointed to be held on July 31st, and sufficient notice thereof given to plaintiffs (see section 156 of the charter). Subsequently the prayer of the petition was granted, and, without making any provision for acquiring the land necessary for the proposed change, defendants entered into a contract for carrying out the plans, and work was immediately commenced. After this, and in order to avoid the necessity of acquiring an easement over plaintiffs’ property, the plans were changed, and defendants have undertaken to erect a solid wall of masonry five feet thick and six feet high above the surface of the ground directly in front of plaintiffs’ premises and immediately adjacent thereto; the top of the wall being about even with the top of the windows in the first floor of plaintiffs’ residence, upon the top of which it is proposed to erect' a fence four feet high.
As the judgments must be affirmed, it will be unnecessary to discuss the other alleged irregularities on the part of defendants.
Judgments affirmed, with costs. All concur.