## Facts

- Foote owned two adjoining lots in Clinton, New York.
- In 1808, Foote conveyed one lot to Joseph Stebbins, who built a dwelling with windows facing toward Foote’s retained lot.
- For about twenty years, the dwelling’s windows received light and air across Foote’s adjacent land without obstruction.
- In 1832, Foote built a structure between the buildings that blocked light to the windows.
- Stebbins later conveyed the dwelling lot to Parker (and a co-plaintiff), who sued claiming a right to continued light based on long enjoyment under the English “ancient lights” doctrine and a presumed grant theory.
- Foote denied any such right absent an express grant and characterized the prior access to light as permissive.

## Issues

1. Whether long, uninterrupted enjoyment of light through windows over a neighbor’s land for twenty years creates a prescriptive easement to unobstructed light under New York law.
2. Whether a grant of an easement for light may be presumed from such long use, particularly where the use appears permissive.
3. Whether the trial court erred by allowing recovery for obstruction of light on that theory.

## Decision

- The New York Supreme Court rejected the English doctrine of ancient lights as part of New York law.
- The court held that long enjoyment of light and air over another’s land does not, by itself, create an easement or property right to prevent building that obstructs the light.
- The court concluded the presumption-of-grant theory was not available on these facts and was inconsistent with New York policy.
- The court set aside the plaintiff’s verdict and granted a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- No easement for light arises by mere prescription from long-continued receipt of light across adjoining land in New York absent an express grant, covenant, or other recognized legal basis.
- A presumption of grant will not be used to create a negative servitude restricting an owner’s use of land based solely on a neighbor’s long-open windows, especially where the enjoyment is permissive rather than “as of right.”
- Policy concerns against restraining building and improvement support refusal to recognize implied negative easements for light in developing communities.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York does not recognize a prescriptive or implied easement to receive unobstructed light based on long window use, reversed the effect of the plaintiff’s trial victory by setting aside the verdict, and ordered a new trial.


Parker & Edgarton v. Foote, 19 Wend. 309 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1838)