Schroeder v. City of New York

Background

A seasonal property owner who used a house and 3.5 acres on the Neversink River sued the City of New York. In 1952 the city began proceedings to divert part of the river about 25 miles upstream. Under the city’s water-supply law the city published notices in the City Record, in New York City newspapers, and in two small Orange County papers, and posted 22 signs along a seven- or eight-mile stretch of the river. No notice was posted on the owner’s property, the notices named no owners, and they did not explain how to make a damage claim or that claims expired after three years. The owner missed the three-year deadline and later sued, saying she never received personal notice.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether these publications and postings satisfied the constitutional requirement that people be given notice likely to inform them when their property interests are at stake. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court said notice must be reasonably calculated to reach interested people when their names and addresses are known or easily found. Publication in distant, small papers and signs along the river, without naming the owner or explaining claims, was not enough. The Court explained that a single mailed letter or similar personal notice would have been a reasonable, practical way to inform her.

Real world impact

The decision means local governments cannot rely solely on broad newspaper ads and remote postings when they know who might be affected. Property owners whose names and addresses are available must be given a fair, personal chance to learn about takings and to make damage claims. The Court reversed the state high court and sent the case back for further proceedings, so the outcome on damages is not yet final.

Dissents or concurrances

The New York courts had upheld the city’s notice, but two judges on the state high court dissented; the Supreme Court reversed that split decision.