
    Flynn v. Taylor.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 2, 1889.)
    Nuisance—Damages—Injunction.
    The frequent and continuous obstruction of-a street and sidewalk by unreasonably stopping wagons thereon, thus inconveniencing plaintiff and others passing on the street, and rendering his place of business less accessible to the public, is a nuisance, remediable by damages and injunction.
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by Hugh Flynn against J. Monroe Taylor, to recover damages for, and to restrain the continuance of an alleged nuisance. Plaintiff was the keeper of a saloon in the city of Brooklyn on the corner of Ferry place, and defendant owned a saleratus factory near by, on Sackett street. Defendant frequently obstructed the street in front of his factory by placing his wagons on the sidewalk while unloading and in other ways. He had done so for years. Plaintiff had judgment for six cents damages and restraining the nuisance. Defendant appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt and Dyeman, JJ.
    
      Sheldon ¡6 Brown, for appellant. J. T. Marean, for respondent
   Pratt, J.

The court below found, as matters of fact, that the defendant for several years unnecessarily and unreasonably interrupted and interfered with public travel upon the street and sidewalk in question, and that the plaintiff was specially damaged thereby, and these conclusions are sustained by the proofs. The plaintiff has a clear right to have the street and sidewalks clear of all obstructions, except such as are reasonable and necessary, under all the circumstances. It is not reasonable that during a greater portion of the day the defendant should keep his horses and wagons upon the sidewalk, and thus make the plaintiff, and all others having occasion to use the walk, turn out upon the street, in order to get around such obstruction. The plaintiff is injured by haying so to turn out in going to and from his place of business. Again, his place of business is so near to this place that it may well be inferred that custom may be diverted from his place by the inconvenience of his customers in having to pass such obstructions. In a case of such glaring public nuisance, it is not essential to prove great damage to warrant its abatement, but slight special injury is sufficient to give a plaintiff standing in court for redress. Callanan v. Gilman, 107 N. Y. 360, 14 N. E. Rep. 264. Judgment affirmed, with costs.  