
    In the Matter of the Application and Petition of J. Edward Simmons and Others, Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, to Acquire Real Estate, etc., in the Towns of Olive, Marbletown and Hurley, Ulster County, New York, for the Purpose of Providing an Additional Supply of Pure and Wholesome Water for the Use of the City of New York. (Ashokan Reservoir, Section No. 2, Parcel No. 54.) Jacob Mayer, Appellant; The City of New York, Respondent.
    Third Department,
    May 4, 1910.
    New York city—-water supply—report of commissioners—failure to determine exact sum due.
    Unless the awards of commissioners in condemnation proceedings are so large or so small as to be palpably unjust, the Appellate Division will not interfere,
    To justify the reversal of an award for error of law, it must appear that the commissioners adopted an erroneous principle in estimating the compensation.
    Where, however, the report' of commissioners of appraisal in proceedings to condemn land to provide a water supply for New York city awards to the owner of one parcel a certain sum subject to an easement of a telephone company of undetermined value, an order confirming it should be reversed, in so far .as it relates to that parcel, for there is no statement of the sum determined upon as a just compensation to the owner of the land as required by section 13 of chapter 734 of the Laws of 1905, as amended.
    Appeal by Jacob Mayer, claimant, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Ulster Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Ulster on the 29th day of September, 1908, as confirms the report of commissioners of appraisal herein as to parcel Ho. 54 in section Ho. 2.
    
      Jerome II. Buck and Edward A. Alexander, for the appellant.
    
      John J. Linson and Fra/nois E. Pendleton, for the respondent.
   Sewell, J.:

It is well settled in this State that an appellate court will not interfere with the reports of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings for inadequacy or .because excessive, unless the amount awarded is so great or so small as to be palpably unjust. Mor will it be set aside for mere errors in the receipt or exclusion of evidence. To justify the reversal of an award for error of law it must be made to appear that the commissioners adopted an erroneous principle in estimating compensation. • (Matter of Daly v. Smith, 18 App. Div. 196; Harlem River & Portchester R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 50 id. 575.)

After a careful examination of the evidence in this proceeding, we are not convinced that the commissioners adopted an erroneous principle of valuation or that injustice has been done. 7he claimant. We think, however, that the report of the commissioners of appraisal is erroneous in that it does not contain a statement of the sum'estimated and determined upon as a just and equitable compensation to be made by the city to the owner, as required, by section 13 of the act (Laws of 1905, chap. 724, as amd.. by Laws of 1906, chap. 314) under which the land was taken. The evidence before the commissioners shows and their report states that the ownership of the land, at the time it was taken, was in . the appellant, subject to a grant to the Citizens’ Standard Telephone Company of a right of way for a telephone line over said premises, and that The amount ascertained and determined by us as aforesaid to be paid to the. owners thereof and the persons interested in the said land for the acquisition of' the fee of the premises designated on said map as parcel Mo. 54, and for all damages, sustained or which may be sustained by them by reason Of the acquisition, use and occupation of the said fee for the purposes indicated- in said act, is the sum of two thousand eight hundred dollars ($2,800), are asfollows : Jacob Mayer, owner .twenty-six hundred dollars ($2,600), subject, to easement of,the Citizens’ Standard Telephone Company of undetermined value. Winn & Van Steenburgh, the owners of certain growing timber standing on said premises, two hundred dollars ($200).”

It is apparent that the effect of tliis award is to compel the appellant to await the determination of the -compensation to be made to the telephone, company. It does not estimate and1 award the damages to which the appellant is entitled, and, therefore, it does not comply with the law.

It necessarily follows that the order appealed from, in so far as the same relates to the amount awardéd for parcel Ho. 54, should be reversed, and the report Or award of the commissioners set aside,' and the matter remitted to the commissioners for a determination of the amount to which thé appellant is entitled, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant.

All concurred.

Order, in so far as the same relates to the distribution of the amounts awarded for parcel Ho. 54, reversed, and the report or award of the commissioners set aside, and the matter remitted to the commissioners for the determination of the relative amounts be awarded to the parties interested, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. 
      
      
        Sic.
      
     