Case Name: SCHUSTER v. FORTY-SECOND ST., M. & ST. N. AVE. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-08
Citations: 102 N.Y.S. 1054
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCHUSTER v. FORTY-SECOND ST., M. & ST. N. AVE. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 102
Pages: 1054–1060

Head Matter:
(118 App. Div. 197)
SCHUSTER v. FORTY-SECOND ST., M. & ST. N. AVE. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
.March 8, 1907.)
Street Railroads—Pavement—Duty to Construct.
Laws 1890, p. 1112, c. 565, § 98, as amended by Laws 1892, p. 1404, c. 676, provides that every street surtace railroad corporation shall keep in repair that portion of the street between its tracks, and 2 feet in width outside thereof, under the supervision of proper local authorities. Held that such section imposes on a street railway company the duty to keep in permanent repair the pavement of such portions of the streets occupied by them irrespective of any request or demand on the part of the local authorities.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol.' 44, Street Railroads, §§ 99-111.]
Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from, Trial Term New York Comity.
Action by Hugo Schuster, an infant, by Johanna Schuster, his guardian ad liten}, against the Forty-Second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, IN-GRAHAM, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Charles F. Brown, for appellant.
E. Lothard McClure, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The only question necessary to be considered on this appeal is whether or not section 98 of the general railroad law imposes a duty upon a street surface railroad company to keep in permanent repair the pavement between its tracks, and two feet in width outside its tracks, irrespective of any request or demand on the part of the local authorities. (Laws 1890, p. 1112, c. 565, amended by Laws 1892, p. 1404, c. 676.) The defendant's position is that no such duty is imposed unless and until the company is required, by the local authorities, to make repairs. The contrary appears to have been held in Conway v. City of Rochester, 157 N. Y. 38, 51 N. E. 395, and Doyle v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 58 App. Div. 588, 69 N. Y. Supp. 120.
Upon the authority of these cases the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
PATTERSON, P. J., and CLARKE, J., concur.