Legal Opinion
Zeiger v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 24, 1938PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In an action for an injunction restraining defendants from operating their railroad, or, in the alternative, for the payment of damages, judgment for plaintiffs reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The burden was on plaintiffs to show that they have unrestricted easements of light, air and access in Livonia avenue, upon which their property abuts. (Hughes v. M. E. If. Co., 130 N. Y. 14, 23.) It was encumbent upon them to show that they have the legal title to the easements which defendants have appropriated or invaded. (Pegram v. Elevated B. B. Co., 147 N. Y.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pegram v. New York Elevated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Foote v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Herzog v. New York Elevated Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1894
- Hughes v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Herzog v. New York Elevated RailroadThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tarolli v. Westvale Genesee, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Morgan v. McLoughlinNew York Supreme Court · 1957
- Sterrer v. GenoaNew York Supreme Court · 1970
- Huggins v. Castle Estates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- Thyhsen v. BrodskyNew York Supreme Court · 1966