In re Union Avenue

Headnote

Highways—Establishment.

On proceedings to lay out a highway, where its necessity is admitted, and the commissioners of highways have certified in favor of a route that will make a di

rect line with the highway with which it will connect, and to which route only one of the owners through whose land it will pass objects, an order of the county judge confirming the decision of the commissioners will be affirmed, though another route proposed by contestant would be somewhat less expensive.

Motion to confirm report oí commissioners.

The commissioners oí highways of Suffolk county, on application, certified to the county judge that the public interest would be greatly promoted by the extension of Union avenue in Bay Shore. They certified in favor of a route which will run through three houses. The necessity of the extension was not contested, but it was claimed by the contestant that another route offered by him was as good, and cheaper. The value of the land on the route certified by the commissioners and that proposed by the contestant is practically the same; and the only difference in cost is the expense of moving the buildings, which would be $900 less on contestant’s route. However, the route certified by the commissioners will make a direct continuation eastward of Union avenue, while that proposed by contestant will make a zigzag course. All the owners through whose land the road will pass, with but one exception, are satisfied with the commissioners’ route. The county judge affirmed the decision of the commissioners, and the matter is now presented to the general term, in accordance with Laws H. Y. 1873, c. 773, which provides; “If the county judge shall affirm the decision of said commissioners, they shall present the order of the county judge for confirmation to the supreme court, at a general term, in the judicial department in which such premises are situated.”