Gillespie v. . Weinberg

Decided January 21, 1896

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1896-01-21

Plaintiff and defendants are adjoining owners of premises' in the city of New York, and derived their respective estates from a common grantor. The plaintiff’s premises are No. 826 Broadway, and the defendants’ premises No. 828 Broadway. A small, irregular piece of ground in the rear of No. 826 Broadway, which is the northeast corner of Broadway and Twelfth street, connects No. 828 Broadway, which adjoins No. 826 Broadway on the north, with East Twelfth street.

Relies on 2 E.H. Smith 214 - Arnold v. . Fee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-01-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1997

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 We do not assent to the opinion of the trial court that the defendants are not entitled to use the alley in question to cart goods to and from their premises. We think the alley may be used for the passage of teams and vehicles as well as for foot travelers, so far as is necessary to the reasonable and proper use and enjoyment of the defendants’ premises, although their uses and occupancy may have been changed. We so held in Arnold v. Fee (148 N. Y. 214). But as the judgment in no way restrains the defendants from passing and repassing to and from their premises, it should be affirmed.

¶2 The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

¶3 All concur.

¶4 Judgment affirmed.