Guichard v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guichard v. City of New York

4 A.D.2d 676, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267

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

DecidedJune 3, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 676 (Guichard v. City of New York) 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

Guichard v. City of New York, 4 A.D.2d 676, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin the maintenance by respondent, the City of New York, of a storm drain through appellant’s property, and for other relief, the appeal is from a judgment entered after trial dismissing the complaint upon the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., and Murphy, J., dissent and vote to reverse and to grant judgment in favor of [677]*677appellant, with the following memorandum: Respondent on its own admission acquired neither title nor a permanent easement to the property in question. In 1934 respondent requested permission of the then owner to use the property “ as a temporary storm drain ”. The fact that the use was to be “ temporary ” was emphasized in such request. In 1942 respondent wrote acknowledging that “ there is no definite permission or easement allowing us the use of your property for this purpose” and stated “we are making studies for the relocation of this drain and would appreciate any consideration of time you can give us to this end.” Thus, this “ temporary ” permissive use has now existed for 23 years and it may not be said that appellant’s demand that the drain be removed is precipitate or unreasonable.

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

In an action to enjoin the maintenance by respondent, the City of New York, of a storm drain through appellant’s property, and for other relief, the appeal is from a judgment entered after trial dismissing the complaint upon the merits. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., and Murphy, J., dissent and vote to reverse and to grant judgment in favor of [677]*677appellant, with the following memorandum: Respondent on its own admission acquired neither title nor a permanent easement to the property in question. In 1934 respondent requested permission of the then owner to use the property “ as a temporary storm drain ”. The fact that the use was to be “ temporary ” was emphasized in such request. In 1942 respondent wrote acknowledging that “ there is no definite permission or easement allowing us the use of your property for this purpose” and stated “we are making studies for the relocation of this drain and would appreciate any consideration of time you can give us to this end.” Thus, this “ temporary ” permissive use has now existed for 23 years and it may not be said that appellant’s demand that the drain be removed is precipitate or unreasonable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 676, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guichard-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1957.