¶1(concurring): I concur with Mr. Justice Benedict except that I go further. As this building was leased for a special purpose, the landlord could do nothing to interfere with the convenient and beneficial use for that purpose. Thus, he could not block up the side windows. The doctrine of ancient lights does not apply, as it is by implied agreement of the landlord that he is so prevented.
91 Misc. 561
Cohen v. Newman
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided September 15, 1915
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1915-09-15
<p>Landlord and tenant — lease of hotel “ with appurtenances ” — easement from side door over adjacent property of landlord.</p> <p>Easements—■ light and air.</p> <p>A tenant’s duty to pay rent has its correlative in the landlord’s duty to protect the tenant in his possession of the premises.</p> <p>Where the lease of a building “ with the appurtenances,” previously used by the landlord as a hotel, contemplates that the tenant shall continue such business and provides that upon performance of the covenants on his part he shall peaceably and quietly enjoy the premises during the term, he as between himself and the landlord who owned the adjoining estate acquired as part of his leased premises a door, vestibule and storm shed with the land on which they stood, together with a beneficial easement during the term of the lease over the servient estate adjoining his for their use as existing at the time of the making of the lease.</p> <p>In this state implied easements of light and air are not recognized.</p> <p>Maddox, J., dissented.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1915-09-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1973
3 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 →