White Cap Sea Foods, Inc. v. Panzner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White Cap Sea Foods, Inc. v. Panzner

1 A.D.2d 963, 150 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5798

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

DecidedApril 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 963 (White Cap Sea Foods, Inc. v. Panzner) 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

White Cap Sea Foods, Inc. v. Panzner, 1 A.D.2d 963, 150 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from so much of a judgment decreeing, inter alia, that plaintiff is entitled to the use of the waterway lying to the east of plaintiff’s premises for reasonable ingress and egress of craft for loading and unloading cargo alongside and parallel with plaintiff’s dock, that defendant remove a catwalk along plaintiff’s dock, and poles in the waterway which interfere with plaintiff’s use of the dock, and enjoining defendant from interfering with the use of the waterway by plaintiff. Appeal by plaintiff from the judgment insofar as it fails to award damages, and from the decision. Judgment modified on the law by inserting in the second decretal paragraph after the word “dock” the words “but plaintiff’s [964]*964right to use the waterway or canal as it existed on March 16, 1889, shall in no way interfere with defendant’s right to the free and unobstructed use thereof at all times”. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. The modification is required by the terms of the deed which gave rise to the present plaintiff’s right to use the waterway. Appeal from decision dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from a decision. Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Appeal by defendant from so much of a judgment decreeing, inter alia, that plaintiff is entitled to the use of the waterway lying to the east of plaintiff’s premises for reasonable ingress and egress of craft for loading and unloading cargo alongside and parallel with plaintiff’s dock, that defendant remove a catwalk along plaintiff’s dock, and poles in the waterway which interfere with plaintiff’s use of the dock, and enjoining defendant from interfering with the use of the waterway by plaintiff. Appeal by plaintiff from the judgment insofar as it fails to award damages, and from the decision. Judgment modified on the law by inserting in the second decretal paragraph after the word “dock” the words “but plaintiff’s [964]*964right to use the waterway or canal as it existed on March 16, 1889, shall in no way interfere with defendant’s right to the free and unobstructed use thereof at all times”. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact are affirmed. The modification is required by the terms of the deed which gave rise to the present plaintiff’s right to use the waterway. Appeal from decision dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from a decision. Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 963, 150 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-cap-sea-foods-inc-v-panzner-nyappdiv-1956.