Harvard Financial Corp. v. Greenblatt Construction Co.

Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents. No opinion. Young, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent with the following memorandum: With the exception of the overhead shore beams, no damage to the realty would attend the removal of the elevator apparatus. Those beams would not seem to be part of the elevator as such and may not be a basis for distinguishing this case from Greater New York Development Co. v. Ka-Ro Building Corp. (232 App. Div. 696; affd., 256 N. Y. 657). The dissent is on the theory that the removal would cause no “ material ” damage.