Case ID: ny_143/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Opening Saint Nicholas Terrace ; John F. Pents et al., Petitioners; Ira Shafer, Claimant.
    Where lots in the pity of New York were conveyed, bounded by a private-street, laid out by the grantor on his own land, but not laid down on the permanent maps of the city, held, that the purchasers became vested with the usual private easements in the street, and that the personal representatives of the grantor were estopped from raising the question that because of the fact that by statute the grantor w|s prohibited from laying out any streets in the city save those laid down on said maps no such easements were created.
    Reported below, 76 Hun, 209.
    (Argued June 4, 1894 ;
    decided June 12, 1894.)
    Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made February 16,1894, which reversed, except in certain particulars, an order of Special Term, confirming the report of a referee appointed in proceedings instituted to recover certain awards for lands, taken for Saint Nicholas Terrace to “ unknown owners.”
    The following is the opinion in full:
    “We agree with the conclusions reached by the General Term and deem it unnecessary to discuss questions that must now be considered as settled in this court relating to the rights of grantor and grantee where the former sells lots to-the latter bounding them on a private street laid out by the grantor on his own land.
    “ The petitioners on this appeal insist that no private easements were created in favor of the abutting owners on so-called Pentz street by the conveyance from Barker, the executor and trustee of the Pentz estate in 1812, to the grantor of the respondent Shafer, for the reason that the former was prohibited by statute from laying out any street in the city of New York independently of those laid down on the permanent maps of the city and that Pentz street was not so laid down.
    “We do not think the present executors of the Pentz estate can raise this question; they are estopped from making any such claim, and as between them and Shafer the latter is vested with the usual private easements in and over Pentz street.
    “We do not decide the question sought to be raised.
    “The city of New York has never made any objections to Pentz-street.
    “ The order of the General Term is affirmed, with costs.”
    
      George G. Munger and J. A. Deering for appellants.
    
      John C. Shaw for respondent.
   Per Curiam

opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Order affirmed.