Legal Opinion

In re Ford

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 8, 1976PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Division that claimants’ privilege under the 1927 deed "to bathe in Flagler Lake” was a mere license, not an easement (see, also, 3 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, License, .§ 1.03). Thus, the claim is for indirect damage to real estate "not taken” (Administrative Code of City of New York, § K5144.0) and interest runs only from the date the award was confirmed, not the date of the taking (Hudson Riv. Tel. Co. v City of New York, 210 NY 394, 397-398).

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hudson River Telephone Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1914

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wachs v. WinterDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1983
  2. Scheer v. KahnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API