Case Name: Henry Otten, App'lt, v. Manhattan Railway Company, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-03-13
Citations: 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 524
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Otten, App’lt, v. Manhattan Railway Company, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 73
Pages: 524–530

Head Matter:
Henry Otten, App’lt, v. Manhattan Railway Company, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,
Filed March 13, 1896.)
1. Appeal—Review.
Where the decision of the court, upon which the judgment is entered, is o'ne stating concisely the grounds upon which the issues have been decided, and not one that states separately the facts found, the court is required to review all questions of law or fact presented upon the record.
3. Eminent domain—Compensation.
Where an allevated railroad company appropriates to its own use the easement of an abutting owner in a street, without the latter’s consent or any legal right, instead of acquiring title to it in a legal manner, the condition of the property at the time of the determination, and not its condition at the time of the appropriation, is to be considered in determining whether such owner is injured to the amount of his damages.
3, Same.
The maintenance and operation of defendant’s road, in this case, were held to be a substantial injury to the plaintiff.
Appeal from a judgmen tin favor of defendant.
W. W. Badger, for app’lt; Brainard Tolies, forresp’t.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
This action, brought to restrain the defendant from a continuous trespass upon the plaintiff's easement in Columbus avenue, near Ninety-Eighth street, in the city of New York, was decided in favor of the defendant, upon the ground that the evidence did not show that the injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the trespass exceeded the benefit to the plaintiff's property from the maintenance and operation of the defendant's railroad.
The decision of the court upon which the judgment was entered was one stating concisely the grounds upon which the issues had been decided, and not one that stated separately the facts found. We are therefore required to review all questions of law or fact presented upon the record. See section 1022 of the Code. The plaintiff's property consists of two buildings, 25 by 60 each, the lots 74 feet deep, situated on the easterly side of Columbus avenue, between 98th and 99th streets. The buildings are used as stores upon the ground floors, and as apartments upon the floors above. There are five stories that are occupied and rented by plaintiff for diving apartments. The structure of the elevated railroad in front of the premises is 47 feet and 7 inches from the surface of the street to the rail. It is just level with the sill of the fifth-story window of the plaintiff's premises, and consists of three tracks, two of which are used for the ordinary way-passing trains, while the center track is used for express trains. The evidence is that such express trains pass this point at a speed of about 30 miles an hour. The evidence as to the obstruction and interference with the plaintiff's easement establishes, beyond a doubt, that the interference here is most serious, and, in consequence of the height of the structure, and the use that is made of it, is a substantial injury to the plaintiff's property. The whole front of the building is covered by the structure and the passing trains, and the use of this third track for express trains, at the speed with which they pass the premises, in addition to the local travel, must be a serious interference with the use of the premises for living purposes. The court below; however, recognizing this condition, dismissed the complaint, because it appeared that the benefit which the plaintiff derived from the maintenance and operation of this road equaled or exceeded the injury thus caused.
The decision of this case depends upon the determination of the question as to what, if any, benefit this plaintiff derives from, the maintenance and operation of this road. We recognize the principle, that is well established, and which is the foundation of the administration of equitable relief by way of injunction, that, to justify such an injunction, the injury to the complainant must be proved to be substantial; that a court of equity will not interfere, by this discretionary writ or mandate, to remedy a wrong which causes no substantial injury; and that, although a legal title may be interfered with, where such interference does not cause continuing substantial damage, a court of equity will leave the parties to their action at law. And this principle has been applied, by a late decision of the court of appeals, to actions of this character, by a very convincing opinion, by Judge Gray, in the case of O'Reilly v. Railroad Co., 148 N. Y. 350. And if it appeared that, although this trespass by the defendant upon the plaintiff's property — this wrongful and unauthorized use by the defendant of the plaintiff's right and interest in this street—-was really a benefit to the plaintiff, instead of an injury, and that the present removal of this elevated railroad from this street would be a greater inj ury to the plaintiff's property than the maintenance and operation of the road, it is clear that the court was right in refusing to give to the plaintiff any relief in equity, leaving the plaintiff to his action at law for damages.
In considering this question, however, it should be remembered that we have to determine just what effect the maintenance and operation of this elevated railroad have upon the plaintiff's property at the present time. It is not the condition of this property 15 or 20 years ago, when the road was first built, that has to be considered. If the defendant had then taken and paid for the property that it required in the street, instead of wrongully appropriating it to its own use, without consent or legal right, it would have been the value of the interest of the plaintiff in the street at that time that defendant would have had to pay for. This defendant, however, saw fit to seize the plaintiff's property, and use it without right or authority, instead of purchasing it, or acquiring title to it in a lawful manner; and now, when it is called to account for its act, it-is the condition of affairs at this time that is . to be determined. It is the value of the plaintiff's property now that is to be ascertained, and the question is whether or not the maintenance and operation of this road is an injury or benefit to the plaintiff's property at the present time. If this road were now removed, with existing conditions, with existing methods of transfer from the plaintiff's property to the other parts of the city, would plaintiff's property be worth now more or less than it is with the road maintained and operated ? The fact that, 15 or 20 years ago, access to the property was difficult and tedious, and that the building of the railroad made it more accessible, and added to its then value, and that its then holder was enabled to sell it for a greater price, would not be material in this investigation ; for, as before stated, we now have to ascertain what the easement in this street appurtenant to plaintiff's property is now worth, and , its value depends upon whether its appropriation by defendant is at present a benefit or injury to the property.
Considering the question in this aspect, I think it cannot be disputed but that the maintenance and operation of this structure is a substantial injury to th'e plaintiff. This property is about midway between the two stations of the elevated railroad; one station being at 93d street and the other at 104th street; sotdiat, in order to use the elevated railroad, a person has to-walk from 98th street to 93d or to 104th street, being upward of a quarter of a mile.' The evidence shows that the benefit to the property midway between stations is the minimum benefit that it can receive from the railroad. It also appeared, from the evidence introduced by the defendant, that this property now has an available means, of transportation to the other parts of the city, the Eighth avenue horse cars, three lines of horse cars upon Amsterdam or Tenth avenue, one line of horse cars on the Boulevard, a cable road on Columbus avenue, which is a continuance of the present Broadway road. It also appeared that, taking the surface cars passing in front of this property, a person could go from this point to the Battery in al out the same time as, or a shorter time than, by the elevated railroad, and that without having to walk or take another conveyance for the five blocks to the elevated railroad station.
We have, thus, the undisputed facts that this structure is an impairment of the plaintiff's right to the use of the street, and that the location and use made by the defendant of this structure in the streets seriously affect the use of the plaintiff's property. It also'appears, without dispute, that other means of communication from this property to the other parts of the city are afforded to the plaintiff, which are at least as convenient and rapid as those offered by the defendant That being the case, is it not apparent, without further evidence, that at the present time, and as at present and operated and maintained, this railroad gives to the plaintiff no substantial benefit, while its operation and maintenance are a substantial injury? This defendant's continued use of the street is a trespass, and is wrongful. Unless this defendant condemns and pays for this plaintiff's right in the street that it now uses, the plaintiff has a legal right to have the structure removed and the trespass cease. If such removal of the structure maintained and used by the defendant, and the discontinuance of its operation, would to-day cease to cause injury to the plaintiff's property, but would improve the property so as to give to the plaintiff, greater rents for the parts rented, and his means of access to his property would not be affected, then it is clear that it is the duty of the court to require the defendant to remove the unauthorized and illegal structure, unless the value of the easement or property that is used should be paid to the plaintiff.
The learned judge, in his opinion, states that the property on Columbus avenue in front of this road has increased in value at a very much smaller ratio than the property in the adjoining streets; that the benefit that has accrued to property in this locality by reason of the growth of the city has fallen largely upon property in the adjacent streets, and in a comparatively small degree upon property upon the avenue through which passes this defendant's road. It is useless to analyze the evidence. It is sufficient to say that, from an examination of it, we are satisfied that this conclusion of the trial judge was correct, and that his conclusion that the removal of the defendant's road would be a more serious injury to the premises than its continued, operation and maintenance was erroneous.
It follows, therefore, that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.