Essanarr Garage Corp. v. Morelite Service Stations, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Essanarr Garage Corp. v. Morelite Service Stations, Inc.

236 A.D. 700

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 700 (Essanarr Garage Corp. v. Morelite Service Stations, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Essanarr Garage Corp. v. Morelite Service Stations, Inc., 236 A.D. 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Since the judgment herein was entered, this court has determined, in Morelite Service Stations, Inc., v. Goldman (235 App. Div. 872, decided May 27, 1932) that New street is not a legally established street and that the defendants would have no easement thereon of light, air or access as a matter of law. Their place of business has been as effectually closed by the erection of a fence preventing access thereto as could possibly happen if an injunction were granted. The plaintiff’s cause of action is based on the theory that New street is a public thoroughfare and that it is seized of a dominant easement appurtenant to the premises, including a free and unobstructed right of way and access over and along and upon New street. This fundamental proposition has been determined to be unsound. The question has become academic. If the plaintiff has suffered monetary damages its remedy is by an action at law. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Since the judgment herein was entered, this court has determined, in Morelite Service Stations, Inc., v. Goldman (235 App. Div. 872, decided May 27, 1932) that New street is not a legally established street and that the defendants would have no easement thereon of light, air or access as a matter of law. Their place of business has been as effectually closed by the erection of a fence preventing access thereto as could possibly happen if an injunction were granted. The plaintiff’s cause of action is based on the theory that New street is a public thoroughfare and that it is seized of a dominant easement appurtenant to the premises, including a free and unobstructed right of way and access over and along and upon New street. This fundamental proposition has been determined to be unsound. The question has become academic. If the plaintiff has suffered monetary damages its remedy is by an action at law. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essanarr-garage-corp-v-morelite-service-stations-inc-nyappdiv-1931.