Case Name: City of New York, Plaintiff, v. The Knickerbocker Trust Company, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-12
Citations: 52 Misc. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of New York, Plaintiff, v. The Knickerbocker Trust Company, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
City of New York, Plaintiff, v. The Knickerbocker Trust Company, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
December, 1906.)
Injunction — Who and what may be enjoined — Interference with property rights by private persons — Erections.
Municipal corporations — Powers — Control of streets and waters and improvement of streets — Power to grant rights in streets.
Equity will compel the removal of steps.and areas which project into a city street and appropriate approximately one-half of tin-sidewalk.
The ordinances of 1833 and 1844 permitting owners of property on both sides of Fifth avenue in the city of New York to enclose fifteen feet of the sidewalk for a court yard were absolutely void.
The resolution of the board of aldermen which attempted to grant to the Knickerbocker Trust Company permission to erect porticoes in front of its building at Fifth avenue and Thirty-fourth street, is void; and the acquiescence of the building department affords the trust company no immunity.
Action in equity to compel defendant to remove certain encroachments in a public highway.
John J. Delany, Corporation Counsel, for plaintiff.
Davies, Stone & Auerbach, for defendant.

Opinion:
O'Gorman, J.
This is a suit in- equity to compel the defendant to remove certain encroachments in the public highway, consisting of steps and areas at Fifth avenue and Thirty-fourth street, which appropriate approximately one-half of the sidewalk of each street. There is no substantial dispute as to the facts. The projection complained of clearly interferes with the right of the public to use the whole of the public street. It is, therefore, an unlawful incumbrance and constitutes a public nuisance. Ackerman v. True, 175 N. Y. 353; McMillan v. Klaw & Erlanger Const. Co., 107 App. Div. 407. It is a well-established doctrine that no power resides in the municipality to authorize a permanent obstruction upon a public street; and, whenever the rights of the public are menaced by an act which amounts to a public nuisance, recourse may be had to the aid of a court of equity. Village of Oxford v. Willoughby, 181 N. Y. 160; Wheelock v. Noonan, 108 id. 179. The ordinances of 1833 and 1844, permitti ng owners of property on both sides of Fifth avenue to inclose fifteen feet of the sidewalk for a courtyard, were absolutely void. Lawrence v. Mayor, 2 Barb. 577; Ely v. Campbell, 59 How. Pr. 337; O'Reilly v. Mayor, 59 id. 277. The resolution of the board of aldermen of December 10, 1901, which attempted to grant to the defendant permission to erect the porticos in front of the defendant's building was also void and in violation of the strict prohibition contained in section 49, subdivisions 3 and 4, of the charter of 1897, and in section 50 of the charter of 1901. Ackerman v. True, supra. The acquiescence of the building department affords the defendant no immunity from its erection and maintenance of a public nuisance; nor should a court of equity withhold appropriate relief because the public suffer from the unlawful conduct of other offenders whose acts have not yet received judicial condemnation.
Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.