New-York tribune., 1914-03-08
Court Says Light and Ac-
cess Rights Cannot
Be Withheld.
ACTION WAS BEGUN
MANY YEARS AGO
Justices Ruled That Seller Los
Interest in Property Which
Changed Hands.

Light. air and access 20 property a.
rights that 20 with property when 'i
changes hands. according to a decision
handed down yesterday 10y the Appellate
Division Of the Supreme Court The APP
pellate Court further says that the seller
Of property has not the right to reserve
such rights as light air and access, nor
may such seller reserve the right 20
bring suits for any violation of the ease
ment rights Of light air and access
The case i'm which the highest court
made the ruling was one brought against
the Manhattan Railway Company which
runs the elevated railroad through DIM
sion street The suit was brought by
Mary Drucker. daughter of Ephraim
Drucker who owned the premises at Nof.
% and 29ia Division street The elc,u,-
ed road runs in front of the premises.
Drucker sold the premises in Ma
1881 In selling the property he had
clause inserted 90 the effect that he
served the rights Of light air and ac,o
and also the authority 10 sue for ai
invasion OF these rights and 10 eniv
whatever compensation the courts mlgh
award for an invasion Of them
After Drucker had sold the premise
he brought suit against the railroad com
pany. asking that the road be enjoncd
from running by the property because
il damaged tho light. air and access 10
, the property. The suit asked the court
also 10 award him damages if II would
not onjoin the road from operating The
suit hung fire in the Supreme Court for
years until Drucker died Then his
daughter. executrix of her fathers will,
revived the suit When the case finally
came TO trial, in 1911. the trial justice
threw the case out Of court The
Druc<er woman appealed from the action
of the trial Judge. The higher court af-
flrmed to-day that action OF the trial jus
tice
The property has changed hands soy
eral times since Drucker owned il. The
last person to acquire title TO the prem
ises was Esther GrodiunsN. now Esther
Davis. When she bought the property
she did not know anything about the
clause by which Drucller claimed he re-
served the rights Of light, air and ac-
cess and the right TO any award the
courts might make for any violation or
these rights.
Finally. when tho Manhattan Bridge
building necessltated the raising of The
tracks of the elc;ated road running
through Division street IN front Of the
premises. the Davis woman sued for
damages. saying I'm her suit that tho
light. air and access to the property were
damaged The elevated road people Of
fe,ed to settle for about $500. Then
the Drucker claim was interposed. AMI
the railroad people were at a loss what
to do.
The Appellate Division Justices "re
divided on the question. three affirming
the action Of the trial Justice In throw
ing the case out Of court and two stand
ing for reversal OF the trial Justice
Presiding Justice Ingraham wrote the
prevailing opinion, which was concurred
I'm by Justice Mclaughlin and bowling
Justice Laughlin wrote the dissenting
opinion. which was concurred In by Jus
tice Hotchkiss
The dissenting opinion says in sub
stance that Drucker had no right 70 en-
Join the operation Of the road, but ne
did have the right TO sue for damages
that had taken place up 20 the time he
sold the property, and then he could
recover from the present owner any
amount that might be awarded the lat
ter for damages 10 The light. air and
access 10 the property. The dissenting
opinion says that the present owner
could be held ar trustee OF any funds
that might be awarded by the courts for
such damages 10 light, air and access
The prevailing opinion also stated that
the Drucker estate could not compel the
Davis woman TO sign release OF her
rights and enjoyments Of light. air and
access 10 the property, even II the com
pany wanted TO pay the money. The
insists that the Davis woman
sign such release before the money ~
passed.