
    Matter of the Petition of the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company Relative to Acquiring Title, Etc.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
    October, 1898.)
    Condemnation Law — Owners not appearing not entitled to further notice — Laches.
    Property owners who, although personally served with a petition and notice in proceedings taken under the Condemnation Law of the Code of Civil Procedure oy an elevated railroad to condemn street easements, never appeared in the proceedings, are not entitled to notice of any subsequent proceedings. Their motion, made in 1898, to vacate a report containing awards, filed in 1898 and confirmed without opposition in 1896, must be denied upon the ground of laches, and especially where their awards were the same in amount as those made in other contested cases in this same locality.
    
      This was a motion by several property owners to vacate the report of the commissioners making awards for street easements affected by the petitioner’s elevated railroad structure. The owners were personally served with the petition and notice in 1893, but never appeared in the proceeding. The commissioners were appointed on default, and no notice of their appointment, or of any of the hearings to be had before them, was given by the petitioner to the property owners. The report of the commissioners mailing an award in each case of six cents was filed on December 13th, 1893, and the said report was confirmed without notice and the final order entered on September 6th, 1896. In cases of other property on the same street in the same locality where the owners did appear and participate, awards of six cents were also made.
    George W. Sickels for motion.
    Alexander S. Lyman opposed.
   Gaynor J.:

The property owners having failed to appear in the proceeding were not entitled to notice of any subsequent proceedings. A proceeding under the Condemnation Law to acquire title to real property is governed in that respect by the general rules applicable to actions and proceedings.. If there could be any doubt of this, it would be removed by reference to the said Law (secs. 3364, 3369, 3370).

There being no legal ground for opening the defaults, the motion must be denied for laches, especially as the awards in contested cases in the same locality were only for six cents.

Motion denied.  