In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of East 178th Street from Creston Avenue to Ryer Avenue. Charlotte Aschenbrenner, Appellant; The City of New York et al., Respondents

In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of East 178th Street from Creston Avenue to Ryer Avenue. Charlotte Aschenbrenner, Appellant; The City of New York et al., Respondents. (Argued April 1, 1907; decided April 9, 1907.) Beal Property — Deed — Easement op Way. Where premises situated on a certain opened street are described in a conveyance thereof as being part of a certain lot on a certain map, which map shows the lot as bounded by the street in question, there is a sufficient recognition of the map to invest the purchaser with an easement of way through the street as shown, even though no street is mentioned in the conveyance. Malter of Mayor, etc., of New York, 114 App. Div. 912, affirmed. Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 12, 1906, which affirmed an order of the Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding. David McClure, John P. Everett, Ellison Crawford and A. A. Greenhoot for appellant. Wm. B. Ellison, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly, John P. Dunn and L. Dowell La Motte of counsel), for City of New York, respondent. Henry B. Deylman for property owners, respondents. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. Under the recent decision of this court in Reis v. City of New York (188 N. Y. 58), the grantees of the various lots ¡dotted on the map of the Buckhout farm acquired private easements in the streets shown on that map only to the extent of the block in front of their respective lots and such other parts of the streets as might be necessary to obtain access to a pub]ic highway. The part of Grove street as delineated on said map, which is the subject of the award in this proceeding, was a mere cul-de-sac, and when the appellant’s testator, Green, acquired title to the lots on both sides of this part of Grove street the private easements were extinguished. Bnt when Green conveyed to Lock the premises. on the south side of Grove street, though he did not mention that street, he described the premises conveyed as being part of lot 7 on the Bnckhont map. This was a recognition of the map, and that map showed lot 7 as bounded on the north by an open street, Grove street. The evidence is conflicting as to whether at the time of the conveyance this part of Grove street was physically open or inclosed, and that question of fact must be assumed to have been decided against the appellant. We are of opinion, therefore, that the commissioners could properly find that the land condemned was subject to an easement of way in favor of the owner of lot 7, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Cullen, Oh. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur. Order affirmed.