
    In the Matter of the extension of Union Avenue in Bay Shore.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 10, 1890.)
    
    Highways—Opening .
    Where the necessity of the highway is not contested, a report of commissioners in favor of a route which will make a direct line with another highway will he. confirmed, although another route making a zigzag course would he cheaper.
    - Appeal from order of county judge affirming order of commissioners of highways as to laying out a highway.
    There was no contest as to the necessity for a highway. The commissioners certified to a route which would make a direct line in continuation of Union Avenue. Only one owner contests, who1 proposes a different course on the ground that it would be cheaper. The difference of expense is in the removal of buildings.
    
      Elliott J. Smith, for applicant; Wilmot M. Smith, for contestant.
   Dykman, J.

The commissioners of highways of the town of Islip, in Suffolk county, made a certificate in favor of a new kigh- • way in Bay Shore in that county, and presented the same to the county judge for affirmance, and that officer affirmed the decision of the commissioners with a slight modification.

That order of the county judge is now presented for confirmation to the supreme court at general term under the provisions of chapter 773 of the Laws of 1873, and we find no reason for disagreement with the local authorities respecting the contemplated improvement, and the order of the county judge is therefore confirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  