From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Red Apple Rest v. McMorran

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 23, 1963
188 N.E.2d 137 (N.Y. 1963)

Opinion

Argued January 8, 1963

Decided January 23, 1963

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.

John R. Davison and Rose M. Fredrickson for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Julius L. Sackman and Paxton Blair of counsel), for respondent.



In this case, it is argued by appellants, by permission and upon an agreed statement of facts, that the State, acting through the Superintendent of Public Works, was not authorized to erect guardrails in front of a portion of appellants' premises which abut upon a State highway, known as Route 17, in the vicinity of Southfields, Orange County, New York. We think, to the contrary, that under the Highway Law, and under the police power, and to effectuate a reasonably safe channelling of traffic, the State had a right to erect upon the property appropriated the guardrails in question. The guardrails, as erected, did not create a nonaccess highway or bar access to the premises in question but left ample room for ingress and egress.

While the issue raised herein might have been reached by a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the Appellate Division nevertheless had jurisdiction to entertain the issue raised in such a submission.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, FOSTER and SCILEPPI concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Red Apple Rest v. McMorran

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 23, 1963
188 N.E.2d 137 (N.Y. 1963)
Case details for

Red Apple Rest v. McMorran

Case Details

Full title:RED APPLE REST, INC., et al., Appellants, v. J. BURCH McMORRAN…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 23, 1963

Citations

188 N.E.2d 137 (N.Y. 1963)
188 N.E.2d 137
237 N.Y.S.2d 707

Citing Cases

Red Apple Rest v. State of N.Y

Claimant further asserts that this is a difficult and dangerous maneuver. In a prior case, Red Apple Rest v.…

Red Apple Rest v. State of New York

Before we explore the merits of the subject case we believe it necessary that we rule on two motions made by…