Opinion · Nylaw New York
LINCOLN SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 96 App. Div. 624 (1904)
Lincoln Safe Deposit Co., Appellant, v. City of N.Y. & JohnB. McDonald, Respondents, Impleaded with the Degnon-McLean ContractingCompany, Defendant., 96 A.D. 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1904)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1904-01-01
- Topic
- general
LINCOLN SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 96 App. Div. 624 (1904) Lincoln Safe Deposit Company, Appellant, v. The City of New York and JohnB. McDonald, Respondents, Impleaded with the Degnon-McLean ContractingCompany, Defendant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed LINCOLN SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 96 App. Div. 624 (1904). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
LINCOLN SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY v. CITY OF NEW YORK,96 App. Div. 624(1904)
Lincoln Safe Deposit Company, Appellant, v. The City of New York and John
B. McDonald, Respondents, Impleaded with the Degnon-McLean Contracting
Company, Defendant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the court below.
LEVENTRITT, J.:
The plaintiff's vault privileges were duly revoked, and its right to maintain or occupy the vaults thereafter ceased. (Deshongv.City of New York,176 N.Y. 475.) The vaults were required for a public purpose (Sun Publishing Assn. v.Mayor,152 N.Y. 257), and there can be no question on the pleadings of the validity of the revocation or the authority to direct it. If the plaintiff failed to remove the property in the vaults after notice of the revocation of the license to maintain and occupy, and abandoned it, the removal by the city or the contractor was justified. It is alleged in the answer as a fact that the property was abandoned. (Wigginsv.McCleary,49 N.Y. 346.) If that is so no cause of action exists. Section 39 of the Rapid Transit Act does not contemplate condemnation or compensation for the property alleged by the plaintiff to have been converted. Its claim is not, nor could it be, that it was illegally deprived of any property in its vault rights, as they had ceased, but that the personal property in the vaults was tortiously appropriated. The vault rights were subject to termination on notice when the street was required for a public purpose.Page 625The sole question on these pleadings would seem to be whether or not there was an abandonment. As to that, a clear issue is presented. The demurrers to the answer should be overruled, with costs to each defendant.