From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmier v. Balsam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1934
241 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Opinion

March, 1934.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur;


For five years, without objection on the part of plaintiffs, appellant had used the premises as a lumber yard in direct violation of the covenant. After the fire there was no protest by plaintiffs until the service of the summons and complaint, at which time the new structure had been substantially erected. Under these circumstances plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief except as to the encroachment on the building line restriction. There is no proof as to the position of the structure before the fire.


Summaries of

Schmier v. Balsam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1934
241 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)
Case details for

Schmier v. Balsam

Case Details

Full title:KATE SCHMIER and Others, Respondents, v. ABRAHAM BALSAM and Another…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1934

Citations

241 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)