Zeiger v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeiger v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

254 A.D. 908, 5 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8263

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

DecidedJune 24, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 908 (Zeiger v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.) 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

Zeiger v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 254 A.D. 908, 5 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an injunction restraining defendants from operating their railroad, or, in the alternative, for the payment of damages, judgment for plaintiffs reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The burden was on plaintiffs to show that they have unrestricted easements of light, air and access in Livonia avenue, upon which their property abuts. (Hughes v. M. E. If. Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 23.) It was encumbent upon them to show that they have the legal title to the easements which defendants have appropriated or invaded. (Pegram v. Elevated B. B. Co., 147 N. Y. 135, 145; Heimburg v. Manhattan B. Co., 162 id. 352, 354.) In the absence of such proof plaintiffs cannot recover. (Shelly v. Metropolitan Elevated B. Co., 1 App. Div. 51; affd., 158 N. Y. 677; Herzog v. New York El. B. Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 296 [not officially published]; affd., 76 Hun, 486; affd., on opinion below, 151 N. Y. 665.) The legal title or right to the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the easements may be destroyed or lost by the owner’s voluntary abandonment or his permission to appropriate it. (Foote v. Elevated Bailroad, 147 N. Y. 367, 371; White v. M. B. Co., 139 id. 19, 26.) Prior to the time plaintiffs acquired title to the property the railroad was in operation and the deed to them recited that the premises were conveyed “ Subject to * * * railroad consent and right of railroad to use all streets in front of and adjacent to said premises.” Under the circumstances, plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of showing that they have legal title to unrestricted street easements and, hence, they were not entitled to relief. (Hughes v. M. E. B. Co., supra; Pegram v. Elevated B. B. Co., supra; Heimburg v. Manhattan B. Co., supra; Shelly v. Metropolitan Elevated B. Co., supra; Herzog v. New York El. B. Co., supra.) Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

In an action for an injunction restraining defendants from operating their railroad, or, in the alternative, for the payment of damages, judgment for plaintiffs reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The burden was on plaintiffs to show that they have unrestricted easements of light, air and access in Livonia avenue, upon which their property abuts. (Hughes v. M. E. If. Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 23.) It was encumbent upon them to show that they have the legal title to the easements which defendants have appropriated or invaded. (Pegram v. Elevated B. B. Co., 147 N. Y. 135, 145; Heimburg v. Manhattan B. Co., 162 id. 352, 354.) In the absence of such proof plaintiffs cannot recover. (Shelly v. Metropolitan Elevated B. Co., 1 App. Div. 51; affd., 158 N. Y. 677; Herzog v. New York El. B. Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 296 [not officially published]; affd., 76 Hun, 486; affd., on opinion below, 151 N. Y. 665.) The legal title or right to the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the easements may be destroyed or lost by the owner’s voluntary abandonment or his permission to appropriate it. (Foote v. Elevated Bailroad, 147 N. Y. 367, 371; White v. M. B. Co., 139 id. 19, 26.) Prior to the time plaintiffs acquired title to the property the railroad was in operation and the deed to them recited that the premises were conveyed “ Subject to * * * railroad consent and right of railroad to use all streets in front of and adjacent to said premises.” Under the circumstances, plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of showing that they have legal title to unrestricted street easements and, hence, they were not entitled to relief. (Hughes v. M. E. B. Co., supra; Pegram v. Elevated B. B. Co., supra; Heimburg v. Manhattan B. Co., supra; Shelly v. Metropolitan Elevated B. Co., supra; Herzog v. New York El. B. Co., supra.) Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 908, 5 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeiger-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack