Case Name: C. Fayette Taylor, Resp't v. The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co., et al., App'lts
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-03-01
Citations: 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 850
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. Fayette Taylor, Resp’t v. The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co., et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 14
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
C. Fayette Taylor, Resp’t v. The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co., et al., App’lts.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed March 1, 1888.)
Easement in street—Compensation eor injuries to.
Damages may be awarded as compensation for injuries to easements caused by the noise resulting from the operation of an elevated railroad in the street.
Appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Davies & Rapello, for app’lts; Wm. W. Badger, for res’pt.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
The appellant contends that this judgment •should be reversed, because the court erroneously allowed the plaintiff to recover compensation for damages occasioned by noise made in constructing and operating the road, and contends that such noise does not constitute an interference with any of the easements appurtenant to the premises. This point has been decided adversely to the views of the appellant, by this court. In the case of Ireland v. The Metropolitan El. R. R. Co. (52 Supr. Ct., 460), in which case it was held that damages may be awarded as compensation for injuries to easements, caused by the noise resulting from the operation of the road, and as the court of appeals have not, in any way, modified this decision, we are bound by it.
The appellants also contend that the court erred in allowing evidence to the effect of the noise, and of the construction, maintenance, and operation of the road upon the business carried on by the plaintiff on his premises.
The true view of the law, in that respect, was laid down by the court in the case on a former appeal, reported in 50 Super. Ct., 311.
The charge of the judge was in harmony with the decision of this court in that case, and of the court of appeals, in the case of Drucker v. The Manhattan Elevated Railway Co. (106 N. Y., 157; 8 N. Y. State Rep., 599).
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed with costs. i
Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Dugro, J., concur.