A. L. Russell, Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. L. Russell, Inc. v. City of New York

4 A.D.2d 943, 168 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3806

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A.D.2d 943 (A. L. Russell, Inc. v. City of New York) 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. L. Russell, Inc. v. City of New York, 4 A.D.2d 943, 168 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order awarding interest on the verdict, in each action, unanimously reversed and complaint in each action dismissed, with costs to the appellants. We would not agree with defendants’ argument that they might with legal impunity heedlessly drain water from the subsoil supporting an adjoining building knowing that as a likely consequence the building would settle. We do agree with their contention, however, that the evidence fails to disclose that they knew or should have known of a danger to be anticipated, or that they were negligent in the conduct of the operation claimed to be the cause of the settlement of the building. In view of this disposition there is no occasion to pass on the other questions raised on this appeal. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Botein, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment and order awarding interest on the verdict, in each action, unanimously reversed and complaint in each action dismissed, with costs to the appellants. We would not agree with defendants’ argument that they might with legal impunity heedlessly drain water from the subsoil supporting an adjoining building knowing that as a likely consequence the building would settle. We do agree with their contention, however, that the evidence fails to disclose that they knew or should have known of a danger to be anticipated, or that they were negligent in the conduct of the operation claimed to be the cause of the settlement of the building. In view of this disposition there is no occasion to pass on the other questions raised on this appeal. Settle order. Concur — Peck, P. J., Botein, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 943, 168 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-l-russell-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack