Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Imperial Building Co. 125 N.Y.S. 115

← Cases

In re Imperial Building Co.

125 N.Y.S. 115 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by PUTNAM, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 115
(68 Misc. Rep. 513.)
In re IMPERIAL BLDG. CO.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.
August, 1910.)

Headnote

Eminent Domain (§ 237[1] )—Condemnation Proceedings—Clerical Error-Amendment of Confirmation.
Where, in an order confirming a report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the opening of a street, there is a plain clerical error, it may be corrected, unless the applicant’s laches has prejudiced the city.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other eases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. § 603; Dec. Dig. § 237.*]
In the matter of the application of the Imperial Building Company to correct an error in assessment in eminent domain proceedings. Application granted.
Charles S. Taber, for the motion.
Archibald R. Watson, Corp. Counsel (P. E. Callahan, of counsel), opposed.

The petition shows a clear error by which the lot frontage of lot 20 on Seventy-Seventh street was taken at 440 feet, instead of 340 feet, its actual front. As the assessment was based on $1.90 a lineal foot, the excess charged amounts to $190. The assessment was confirmed October 27, 1908. Certainly, where palpable error of this kind appears, the owner should have a remedy. Matter of Opening of Vandervoort Ave., 68 Misc. Rep. 510 , 125 N. Y. Supp. 113 .

Such a correction is not like a proceeding to vacate or reduce assessments. Where it is claimed that the assessment has been unduly increased by including improper charges, public policy requires speedy objection, so that the matter may be examined while all the evidence is still available. Hence the city charter (Laws 1901, c. 466, § 963) requires that a proceeding to vacate or reduce assessments must be taken within one year. An error like this, however, does not depend upon testimony of witnesses, but stands out on the face of the official map. It seems, therefore, just that such a palpable error should be corrected, unless the applicant’s laches may have prejudiced the city. In the present case, the sale of part of the premises in May last led to the discovery of the error.

The application is, therefore, granted.

Application granted.

Cases cited