The act of 1873 (chap. 528) declares that certain streets and avenues specifically named shall thereafter be known as the Eastern boulevard. It further declares that it shall be the duty of
It further declares that the boulevard as laid out by the department of public works shall remain under the control and management of that department as to the regulating, grading, paving,-sewering, or otherwise improving and maintaining the same, in such manner as the commissioners may deem expedient, and directs the comptroller to borrow, from time to time, in the name of the mayor, aldermen and commonalty, by the issue of assessment bonds, such sums as shall be necessary to pay all the expenses incurred or to be incurred under the act.
It further declares that all acts and parts of acts in force in relation to the opening, widening, laying out, grading, regulating, sewering, and otherwise improving the streets, avenues, or roads in the city of New York, and the assessment and collection of the expenses of the same which are not inconsistent with its provisions, are applicable to it as if they were incorporated therein.
These features of the act have thus been set out to show that it was the design of the Legislature to confer upon the depart-, ment of public works full and complete power to do everything that was necessary to carry out the project described.
And they seem, in order to make this certain beyond all cavil, to have incorporated in the power given, all acts not inconsistent with this design. . The power to regulate, grade,’ improve and maintain was, it would seem, to begin, and was to be exer
The act of 1873, supra, was an amendment of the act of 1870 (chap. 626), and in the latter act the same control was given to the department of public parks. The Laws of 1872 (chap. 872) transferred to the department of public works the. powers previously possessed over the streets by the department of public parks, and invested the former with all the functions and powers possessed by the latter. This was reiterated and confirmed by the charter of 1873 (§ 73, chap. 335). The intentions of the Legislature to place the matter of the class of improvements mentioned under the exclusive control of the department of public works is quite apparent from the terms of the act of 1873, and the prior legislation on a kindred subject referred to and illustrated by reference to acts passed. The principles involved and applicable herein are to 'some extent adjudicated in the case of Greene v. The Mayor (60 N. Y., 303), Aside from this view, no good reason presents itself against the preservation of this independent organization. On the contrary, it would seem quite
For these reasons we think there was no necessity for an ordinance of the common council in regard to the improvement under consideration, and that the petitioner on that objection is not entitled to relief.
We think also that the board of assessors were not bound to wait for the completion of the entire work before laying an assessment, or to include the entire expense in one assessment list. The act of 1873, supra, contains no prolusion from which any proposition to the contrary emanates. The general rule which prevails in regard to these improvements is that the work contemplated may be done, in whole or in part, at such times as the department having control of it may determine. The exceptions to this rule rest in positive enactment. (Matter of Dugro, 50 N. Y., 513; see also Matter of Ellsworth, 53 id., 647; Manice v. The Mayor, 8 id., 120; Matter of Ingraham, 64 N. Y., 310.) In the Matter of Dugro the court said : “ The common council ” (which was then the depository of the powers referred to) “may, save as restrained by and subject to the directions of the Legislature, exercise their discretion freely as to the - time, mode and manner of laying out, making, grading and paving streets, and also as to the material of which the streets shall be made, or with which they shall be paved.” And this principle thus enunciated prevails here.
We do not feel called upon to consider any other objection urged by the respondents, except to say that it is valueless, and it follows, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed.
Order reversed.