Case ID: nys_27/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CULLEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(76 Hun, 24.)
    WALSH v. BROOKLYN EL. R. CO. et al.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    February 12, 1894.)
    Elevated Railroads—Appropriation op Easements.
    In an action against an elevated railroad company for injuries to abutting property, failure of the court to find that the easements of light, air, and access are in themselves only of nominal value is immaterial, where the court finds that the premises were worth $500 less than they would have been had the easements not been taken.
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by Mary A. Walsh against the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company and the Union Elevated Railroad Company to recover damages to the rental value of plaintiff’s premises, No. 320 Myrtle avenue, and to restrain the operation of defendants’ railroad in front of plaintiff’s premises, or, in the alternative, to recover damages to the fee value. From a judgment restraining defendants from operating the railroad in front of said premises unless they pay plaintiff $500, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
    Argued before DYKMAN, PRATT, and CULLEN, JJ.
    Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson, (Wm. N. Cohen, of counsel,) for appellants.
    Stephen M. Hoye, (Francis Russell Whitney, of counsel,) for respondent.
   CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff an injunction unless the defendants pay $500 for damages to the fee of plaintiff’s property. Under the decisions of the court of appeals the trial court should have found that plaintiff’s easements in the street, of light, air, and access, were, in themselves, only of nominal value. Bookman v. Railroad Co., 137 N. Y. 302, 33 N. E. 333. But the failure to so find nowise affected the judgment. The court found as a matter of fact that the abutting premises were worth $500 less than they would have been had plaintiff’s-easements not been taken. This was the correct rule oí damage. For that $500, judgment was given, and no award was made for the easements, in themselves. There was evidence that justified the finding, and it should not be disturbed. Judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.