130 A.D. 396 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1909
On the 25th of February, 1907, at about three o’clock in the morning, a portion of the building known as Hos. 216, 218, 220 Broome street, borough of Manhattan, owned by Jacob Levy, was destroyed by fire. By reason of the fire the walls became badly . cracked, broken and out of plumb, and the woodwork was in a burned and damaged condition, leaving said building in an unsafe and dangerous condition, and in the opinion of the superintendent of buildings in actual and immediate danger of falling, so as to endanger life and property.
It appears by the records of the fire department, in evidence, that the said fire was extinguished at nine-twelve o’clock on said day. At eleven o’clock Bart Dunn, a contractor employed for that pur-" pose by the superintendent of buildings, commenced work upon the building to make it safe. At about twelve o’clock on said day the owner received a notice from the superintendent of buildings stating the condition of the building, and. that “ You are therefore required to make same safe and secure by immediately taking down all cracked, broken, bulged and out of plumb brick walls forthwith, also take down and remove all damaged woodwork, and replace and rebuild all of the above brick walls and burnt woodwork in a good safe condition according to law. You will also take notice that you are hereby required to immediately certify to the Superintendent of Buildings for the Borough of Manhattan, your assent or refusal to secure or remove said building, and that unless yon so do a survey will be ordered to be held thereon as the law directs, and that all costs and expenses incurred thereby will become a lien on said building and premises.”
The attorney for the owner wrote on the same day, February twenty-fifth, to the bureau of buildings: “ I * *' * demand in pursuance of the law in such case made an immediate survey, and I ■ further notify you so that any work done by your department upon
OniFebruary twenty-sixth the superintendent of buildings sent a similar notice to that heretofore referred to as sent on the twenty- . fifth. On February twenty-eighth a notice- was sent that a survey would be made on the second day of March, at eleven o’clock in the forenoon, and that in case tlie said premises should be reported unsafe or dangerous under the said survey, the said report would bé placed before the Supreme Court on the fifth day of March* and that a tidal upon the allegations and statements' contained in the said report would be then and there had. The owner joined in the Survey and appointed a representative as required, and the survey was had on the second day of March. On the .fifth of March the report of the survey came before the Special Term, was confirmed and a precept was duly issued on said day directing that the walls • of said premises be made safe and secure by immediately taking down ¡all cracked, broken, bulged and out of pltirnb- brick walls and also taking down and removing all damaged woodwork.
Immediately upon the issuance of said precept the owner paid the expenses and ' disbursements of the preliminary survey and searches and received á receipt therefor, and with the consent of the department of buildings proceeded to take do wn all- cracked, broken, bulged and out of plumb brick walls, and to take down and remove -all damaged woodwork in accordance with the requirements of said precept, and had completely taken down and removed the same within one week from the issuance of the said precept.
• On March fifth the city caused to be filed in the office of the clerk of the county of Mew York a notice of pendency of proceeds ings, as follows: “Motice is hereby given that á proceeding has been Oommenced and is pending in this court for the enforcement' of the.laws and ordinances relating to the construction,.alteration or
After the owner had complied with all the requirements of said precept, he caused to be erected upon, said premises a new building, and in June, 1908, being desirous of obtaining a mortgage upon said premises, the title company, in searching the title, having found the notice of pendency of proceedings above alluded to on file, the owner, upon inquiry of the corporation counsel, found that the said lis pendens was being kept upon said premises by reason of a claim by the city of New York for expenses claimed to have been paid to one Bart Bunn, a contractor, for $6,233.61, claimed in his bill to have been done for work upon the building between February 25 and March 2, 1907, both inclusive.
It will be seen that the work for which the lien is claimed was all done before the survey and before the issuance of the precept on the fifth of March, and it is uncontradicted that although the work required to be done by said precept had been in all respects performed and complied with by said owner on or before the 12th of March, 1907, no action was taken by the city of New York or the commissioner of buildings to return said precept, nor was any action taken in regard to the prosecution of any claim under said lis pendens.
The owner made a motion to discharge and cancel of record the lis pendens, and said motion having been granted, the city appeals from the order entered thereon.
The Building Code of the city of New York, being chapter 15 of part 1 of the Code of Ordinances, adopted October 30,1906, and approved November 8,1906, contains provisions in regard to unsafe buildings in the city. Section 153 provides that “ Any building or buildings, part or parts of a building * * * that from any cause may now be, or shall at any time hereafter become dangerous or unsafe, may be. taken down and removed, or made safe and secure, in the manner following: Immediately upon such unsafe or
Section 154 provides that “ If the person or persons so served with notice shall immediately certify his or their assent to the securing or removal of said unsafe or dangerous buildings * * * he or they shall be allowed until one o’clock p. m. of the day following the service of such notice, in which to commence the securing or removaljof the same; * * * but upon his or their refusal or neglect to comply with any of the requirements of said notice so served a further notice shall be served, * * * notifying him or them that a survey of the premises named in the said notice will be made at the time and place therein named, ' * *. * by three competent persons, * * * and that in case the said premises shall be reported unsafe or dangerous under such survey, the said report will be placed before a court therein named having jurisdiction to the extent of $1,000, and that a trial upon the allegations and statements contained in said report * '* * will be had before said court, at a time and place therein named, to determine whether said unsafe or dangerous building or premises shall be repaired and secured or taken down and removed. * * * ” ■
Section 155-, entitled “ Court Proceedings,” provides: “ Whenever the report of any such survey, had as aforesaid, shall recite that the building, premises or structure thus surveyed is unsafe or dangerous,- the Corporation Counsel of The City of New York shall at the time in the said notice named, place said notice and report before the judge or justice holding á special term of the court, in the said notice named, which said judge or justice shall immediately proceed td obtain and impanel á jury, and to the trial of said issué
This is a complete scheme, for compelling the owners of unsafe buildings to make them safe, and, in case of refusal or neglect of owneis to comply therewith, a scheme for securing the'promp.t performance of th,e necessary work by the public authorities and for the recovery of the expense thereby incurred by the enforcement of a lien placed upon the property involved. Opportunity is given-to the owner to .do the necessary work, and upon Ifis ' default the commissioner of buildings is to .do it. The obligation upon the owner, the lien upon the land, and the enforcement of said lien, however, are all predicated upon preliminary notice, upon a survey, upon a hearing in court, and upon the judgment of the court, evidenced by the precept thereof. In other words, it is a, summary court proceeding, The right to take the owner’s property depends upon the'd-ue process of law therein provided for, and all that he can be compelled to pay is the preliminary expense of searches and surveys, and the costs and expenses of doing the work required to be done by the precept. As, however, the exigencies of the situation may not permit the delay incident to such court proceedings, although extremely summary in' their nature, and given a right of way in court, it is provided by section 157, entitled “ ¡Recovery of bodies -under fallen buildings,” that “ In case of the falling of ahy building, or part thereof, in The. City of'Hew York, where persdns are known or believed to be buried under the ruins thereof, it shall be the duty of the Fire Department to cause an examination of the
And section 158, entitled “Fund for use and benefit of the Department of Buildings,” provides: “The Corporation Counsel shall sue for and collect all penalties and take charge of and conduct all legal proceedings irhposed or provided for by this Code. * * * He shall on the first day of each and every month'render to each Commissioner of Buildings an account of and pay over to the. Commissioner having jurisdiction the amount of such penalties and costs received by him; * * * and each Commissioner shall pay over monthly the amount of such penalties and costs so collected to 'the Comptroller of The City of Mew York as a fund for the use and benefit of the Department of Buildings for the purpose of paying any expense incurred by said department, under section 157 of this Code.”
Under these provisions a method is provided to meet emergencies. It is expressly alleged by the city in the case at bar that the work performed was emergency work, and was performéd pursuant to the provisions of section 157 of the Building Code to render the building temporarily safe until the proper proceedings could be taken as in the case of an unsafe building, as provided by said Building Code. It is argued with much force that if an owner’s property
According to the affidavit of the owner, in the case at bar, the contractor employed by the superintendent of buildings was at work upon the premises before the fire was extinguished. According to an affidavit of the contractor’s foreman the said work was commenced at eleven o’clock in the morning, which was less than two hours after it had been extinguished, according to the records of the fire department. In either case it is obvious that extraordinary promptness was displayed in commencing work upon the buildings 'which was entirely completed three days before the issuance.of the precept, and the expense of which amounted to upwards of $6,000.
It should be noted further that in the notice of pendency of proceedings no claim whatever is made for expenses incurred prior to the issuance of the precept, but, on the contrary, the claim is for the expenses that might be incurred in the execution of the precept.
In the face of the careful and detailed provisions for the acquiring of a lien by court proceedings, heretofore alluded to, it is evident that for work done and' expenses incurred, independent of. and preliminary to those proceedings, the owner cannot be arbitrarily and summarily subjected to liability therefor.
As it appears that the preliminary expenses for searches and surveys have been paid, and that all the work required to be done by the precept has been done in accordance therewith by the owner, there is no amount due for which a lien attached, and the order of the Special Term canceling the Us pendens, in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Building Code, was proper, and should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements to the respondent.
Ingraham, McLaughlin, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten" dollars costs and disbursements.