"In Fountainebleau v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, the court considered an interlocutory appeal from an order temporarily enjoining construction of a fourteen-story addition to the Fontainebleau Hotel. The proposed tower would extend 160 feet above grade and, during winter afternoons, cast a shadow over the Eden Roc Hotel’s cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas. The Eden Roc alleged that the construction would interfere with light and air, render its beach unsuitable for guests, violate a building ordinance, and infringe easements of light and air allegedly established by prescription, implication, common law, or statute. The chancellor granted a temporary injunction on the principle that no one has a right to use property to the injury of another, while acknowledging that the evidence of malicious intent was insufficient by itself to justify equitable relief. The appellate court reversed. It held that, absent a contractual or statutory obligation, a landowner has no legal right to the free flow of light and air across adjoining land. A structure serving a useful and beneficial purpose does not create a cause of action for damages or an injunction merely because it cuts off light, air, or a view, even if it was partly erected out of spite. The court also found no statutory, express, implied, or prescriptive easement supporting the plaintiff’s claim, and noted that the Shadow Ordinance enacted at the plaintiff’s request had been held invalid. Changing the established rule that adjoining landowners may build to the boundaries of their tracts and to any desired height, subject to building restrictions or regulations, would amount to judicial legislation. The order granting the temporary injunction was therefore reversed, with directions to dismiss the complaint."