Opinion
March 16, 1949.
Present — Taylor, P.J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See post, p. 895.]
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The plaintiffs-respondents have authority to appropriate the lands in question and to use them for the purposes proposed. (See Anderson v. Taconic State Park Comm., 262 App. Div. 892, affd. 287 N.Y. 668; Blank v. Browne, 217 App. Div. 624.) We have examined the remaining separate defenses and agree with the Special Term that they are insufficient in law. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an action in ejectment. The order struck out the answer and defenses of defendants and directed judgment in favor of plaintiffs.)