Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp.

Read, J. (dissenting).

The majority disapproves of the strict common-law “rule, derived from feudal concepts, that any intrusion—no matter how small—on the demised premises must result in full rent abatement” for two reasons: “inherent inequity” and “modern realities that a commercial lessee is free to negotiate appropriate lease terms” (majority op at 623). But as even a critic of what is often called the “one-inch rule” has recognized,

“[i]t is one thing to conclude that a deliberate physical trespass should not be penalized with a draconian rent penalty, but it is quite another to conclude…