The People of the State of New York ex rel. Morris Weinstein and Max Eisman, Relators, v. Antonio Zucca and Others, Composing the Board of Assessors of the City of New York, Respondents

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Morris Weinstein and Max Eisman, Relators, v. Antonio Zucca and Others, Composing the Board of Assessors of the City of New York, Respondents. First Department, April 4, 1912. See head note in People ex rel. Olin v. Hennessy (ante, p. 190). Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 17th day of January, 1910, directed to Antonio Zucca and others, composing the board of assessors of the city of New York, commanding them to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of New York all and singular their proceedings had in determining the damage to be awaisded to the relators for a change of grade. The act under which the claim is made is known as chapter 460 of the Laws of 1904, the first section of which reads as follows: “Section 1. In any case where the grade of any street or avenue in the City of New York has been changed to conform to the location and construction of the new East River bridge authorized by chapter seven hundred and eighty-nine of the laws of eighteen hundred and ninety-five, the board of assessors of the City Of New York is hereby authorized and empowered to estimate and allow the damage which each owner of land fronting on such streets or avenues has sustained or will sustain by reason of said change of grade, and to matee a just and equitable award of the amount of such damage to the owner or owners of said lands fronting on said street or avenue and opposite thereto and affected by said change of grade. Provided, however, that no award shall’ be made unless build- . ings or improvements have been erected on such land or lands prior to such change of grade, and the damages, allowed, if any, shall be limited to damages to such buildings or improvements.” A substantial award has been made to relators, who, however, feel aggrieved thereby because it is, as they consider, insufficient. Benjamin Trapnell, for the relators. Charles J. Nehrbas, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Scott, J.:] Scott, J.: There is no question in this case as to the jurisdiction of the board of assessors or of the regularity of their proceedings. We are, therefore, of the opinion, for the reasons stated in People ex rel. Olin v. Hennessy (150 App. Div. 190), decided herewith, that we are without power to review the determination. We have, however, looked into the record, with the result that we are satisfied that, if we had the power, we should not interfere with the determination sought to be reviewed. The writ must, therefore, be dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondents. Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke and Dowling, JJ., concurred. Writ dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. Order to be settled on notice.