A. C. Israel Commodity Co. v. Tirfing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. C. Israel Commodity Co. v. Tirfing

7 A.D.2d 903, 182 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9891

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 17, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 903 (A. C. Israel Commodity Co. v. Tirfing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. C. Israel Commodity Co. v. Tirfing, 7 A.D.2d 903, 182 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment so far as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs-respondents. The third-party defendant’s contention that the tide which caused the damages was unprecedented does not suffice to undermine the verdict and judgment. There had been previous lesser floods of the pier and an issue of fact was tendered whether the precautions, suggested by the previous floods, had been taken. Thus, a flooding of the pier of less than the unprecedented level which occurred would have caused some of the damage. Since the parties stipulated the amount of the damage, the jury was not required to assess how much of the damage was due to the failure to take these precautions. On this view, the further argument of the third-party defendant that there was “ nothing ” it could have done to prevent the damage is of no avail on this record, howsoever that issue might be raised in another case. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment so far as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs-respondents. The third-party defendant’s contention that the tide which caused the damages was unprecedented does not suffice to undermine the verdict and judgment. There had been previous lesser floods of the pier and an issue of fact was tendered whether the precautions, suggested by the previous floods, had been taken. Thus, a flooding of the pier of less than the unprecedented level which occurred would have caused some of the damage. Since the parties stipulated the amount of the damage, the jury was not required to assess how much of the damage was due to the failure to take these precautions. On this view, the further argument of the third-party defendant that there was “ nothing ” it could have done to prevent the damage is of no avail on this record, howsoever that issue might be raised in another case. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 903, 182 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-c-israel-commodity-co-v-tirfing-nyappdiv-1959.