
    In the Matter of John Newton, Commissioner of Public Works. Claim of Academy of the Sacred Heart.
    Appeal from order confirming report of commissioners of appraisal.
    
      James A. Beering, for app’lt; Wm. H. Clark, corporation counsel (Arthur II. Mast&n, of counsel), for Commissioner of Public Works, resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal by the Academy of the Sacred Heart from an order of the special term confirming the report of commissioners appointed to appraise the damages resulting from the construction of the new aqueduct.

The claim filed by the appellant was for $360,000 of which $195,000 was for land in Convent avenue, upon which eight pipes were laid for the transmission of water.

It appeared that the land upon which Convent avenue was constructed belonged to the city and therefore the claim for compensation therefor made by the appellant was disallowed.

The remainder of the claim was divided into several branches and the appellant was allowed $5,500.

The record discloses no error and a careful examination satisfies us that thp allowances made are liberal.

The commissioners have written a long and carefully prepared opinion which fully justifies their action in every respect.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Barnard, P. J.

The commissioners have made a minute and careful report. They rejected the great item claims because the petitioner had conveyed the land taken to the city of New York. The commissioners had no power to set aside thy deed, and there was no reason for. so doing. There are several other items of consequential damages to land not taken, such as putting the excavated material temporarily on the petitioner's land, and for use and occupation of petitioner’s lands while the work was going on, and for depreciation in value of lots because the city improvement would make the cost of removing excavation for cellars on petitioner’s lots more, which would be included, and the lots so far diminished. For some of these claims the commissioners have made allowance, and for others they have made none. We find no reason to differ from the commissioners as to the sufficiency of the same, nor to the rejection of items which they have rejected. The case is very voluminpus, and the examination of the review of the evidence made by the commissioners is full and complete.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.  