You are here: / / THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON A PARTY WALL EXCEEDED ANY EASEMENT...

THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON A PARTY WALL EXCEEDED ANY EASEMENT THAT MIGHT ARISE FROM THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTY WALL.

A wall separating plaintiff’s (NYCAR’s) and defendant’s property was located entirely on NYCAR’s property. Defendant installed light fixtures on the wall for commercial purposes (an outdoor eating area for defendant’s restaurant). The defendant also installed a door in the wall to act as an emergency exit for patrons of the restaurant. Defendant argued the wall was a party wall and the easement which accompanies a party wall allowed the installation of fixtures on the wall. The Third Department explained that the installation of fixtures on the wall exceeded any easement which might exist:

 

Defendant concedes that the survey that plaintiff submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment shows that the wall lies wholly on NYSARC’s property, but argues that defendant’s installation of the fixtures and utilities was nevertheless proper because it is a party wall. “‘A party wall is generally described as a wall erected between two adjoining pieces of property and used for the common advantage of both owners'” … . Party walls are often located on the boundary line between parcels, in which case the portion of the wall on each property belongs to that parcel’s owner, subject to an easement in the other building’s owner for its support … . A party wall, however, may also “belong[] entirely to one of the adjoining owners, but [be] subject to an easement or right in the other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between the two tenements” … .

Here, defendant’s actions were beyond the scope of a party wall easement; the fixtures and utilities that defendant placed on the exposed eastern portion of the wall neither provided support to defendant’s building nor contributed in any way to the maintenance of a dividing wall between the buildings. Instead, they were installed solely for defendant’s “mere convenience or advantage” in operating its restaurant … . Stamp v 301 Franklin St. Café, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00410, 3rd Dept. 1-21-16

 

REAL PROPERTY (PARTY WALL, EASEMENT EXCEEDED BY INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE WALL)/PARTY WALL (EASEMENT EXCEEDED BY INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE WALL)/EASEMENTS (EASEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTY WALL WAS EXCEEDED BY THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES ON THE WALL)

You might also like
Town Zoning Ordinances Prohibiting Exploration For and Production of Natural Gas (In Response to Concerns Over Hydrofracking) Upheld​
ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE. 
PLAINTIFF, AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT), AFTER A COMPLAINT MADE BY A PATIENT TO THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF HEARING AND A STATEMENT OF CHARGES INDICATING HIS EMT LICENSE COULD BE REVOKED; PLAINTIFF SOUGHT A DECLARATION HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS; SUPREME COURT AGREED BUT THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Where an Injured Worker Remains Attached to the Work Force After Injury, the Measure of Benefits Is the Difference Between Actual Earnings Before and After Injury and Cannot Be Based On Evidence of What the Worker Could Be Earning
BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLOWED EVIDENCE PRECLUDED BY A SANDOVAL RULING TO COME IN, AND DID NOT OBJECT TO HEARSAY WHICH REFUTED DEFENDANT’S ALIBI; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE AWARD OF BACK PAY TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO FACED DISCIPLINARY ACTION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT WAS ULTIMATELY ACQUITTED AFTER TRIAL; THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SEX OFFENDER CAN NOT BE KEPT IN PRISON AFTER SERVING HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCE ON... JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO SAID SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE...