Matter of Albert Fam, 17 N.Y.2d 174 (1966)
r
In proceedings under the Highway Law to establish a public highway, the Appellate Division’s review is limited to questions of jurisdiction and rulings made before the condemnation commissioners; it cannot inquire into the factual questions of necessity or damages if the County Court determination is supported by evidence.
r
Summary
r
Albert Fam sought to establish a cul-de-sac, Pam Court, as an extension of Adams Street under Highway Law § 173, requiring condemnation of land owned by individual respondents. Commissioners determined the highway was necessary and proper, assessing damages. The County Court confirmed this, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the taking unnecessary and not for a public purpose. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that its review was limited to jurisdictional issues and rulings during the hearing and that it could not substitute its judgment on the necessity of the highway if the County Court’s determination was supported by evidence.
r
Facts
r
Albert Fam, owning two parcels of land (Lots 81 and 99) with existing access to Verity Lane and a 16-foot easement from Adams Street, sought to create Pam Court as an extension of Adams Street. This required condemning small, triangular parcels owned by the respondents, which abutted the existing Adams Street cul-de-sac. Fam’s plan included a housing development called “Fam Woods” and evidence suggested a 40-50 foot access was required by the Nassau County Planning Commission for development.
r
Procedural History
r
Fam initiated proceedings under Highway Law § 173. The County Court appointed three commissioners as required by Highway Law § 174. The commissioners determined that the highway was necessary and proper and assessed damages. The County Court confirmed the commissioners’ determination. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the taking unnecessary and not for a public purpose. Fam appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the Appellate Division, under Highway Law § 179, has jurisdiction to review the factual determination of necessity for a proposed public highway when the County Court has confirmed the commissioners’ finding of necessity.
r
Holding
r
No, because Highway Law § 179 limits the Appellate Division’s review to questions affecting jurisdiction and rulings made during the hearing before the condemnation commissioners, and the determination of necessity is a factual question to be determined at the local level, subject to confirmation by the County Court, and should not be disturbed if supported by evidence.
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals emphasized that Highway Law § 179 states the County Court’s decision