
    KETTELTAS et al. v. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO. et al.
    (No. 6030.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    July 10, 1914.)
    Eminent Domain (§ 127*)—Compensation—Damage to Abutting Peopebty.
    The owner of property abutting on .a street in which an elevated railroad structure is constructed is not entitled to recover for depreciation in value by reason of the construction of the structure in the street generally, especially with reference to the point below, where the structure left the street and turned into another street, where it did not substantially interfere with plaintiff’s easements.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Eminent Domain, Cent. Dig. § 348; Dec. Dig. § 127.*]
    Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
    Action by Alice Ketteltas and others against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company and others. From a judgment awarding damages to plaintiffs with an alternative injunction if the damages are not paid, defendants appeal.
    Modified and affirmed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHRIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
    J. Osgood Nichols, of New York City, for appellants.
    Isaac E. Bermant, of New York City, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Although it is stated in the decision that "the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover damages or to the award of injunctive relief in respect to such portions of defendants’ structure as are not in the portion of Pearl street directly in front of the premises in suit,” a comparison of the awards with the testimony upon which they are based indicates very clearly that this rule was not closely adhered to. In point of fact there is very little of the structure in Pearl street in front of plaintiff’s premises.

It is very probable that values in Pearl street above Coenties Slip have been seriously impaired by the erection and operation of defendants’ railroad, and that such impairment has affected values in the street generally, even below the point where the structure leaves Pearl street and turns into Coenties' Slip, and where it does not substantially interfere with plaintiffs’ easements; but for this latter impairment no damages can be recovered. The premises in suit have been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair that some portion of the diminution of rental value must be attributed to neglect. On the whole, we are of opinion that substantial justice will be done if the fee damage is reduced to $3,025, and the rental damage to $181.50 per annum, or $1,875.50; both sums to carry interest from May 20, 1913, the date of the trial. The extra allowance must also be reduced to $245.

The judgment will, accordingly, be modified in these respects, and as modified affirmed, without costs in this court. The twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth findings of fact will be reversed, and in place thereof there will be found and inserted in the order findings of similar tenor, except as to the several amounts of damage, which shall be as above indicated. Settle order on notice.  