Anthony v. Huntley Estates of Greenburgh, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anthony v. Huntley Estates of Greenburgh, Inc.

6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1054 (Anthony v. Huntley Estates of Greenburgh, Inc.) 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

Anthony v. Huntley Estates of Greenburgh, Inc., 6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to enjoin interference with the natural flow of water in a stream, to direct the removal of material deposited in the stream and restoration of the stream to its original condition, and for damages. The Huntley Estates Corporations appeal from a money judgment in favor of plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals on the ground that the judgment was inadequate. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See, e.g., Mairs v. Manhattan Real Estate Assn., 89 N. Y. 498; McCormick v. Horan, 81 N. Y. 86; Foot v, Bronson, 4 Lans. 47; Johnston v. City of Galva, 316 Ill. 598 ; 56 Amer. Jur., Waters, §§ 416, 419; cf. Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh, 3 N Y 2d 583.) Finding number 15 is modified by adding the following at the end thereof: “ Most of the mud and silt that settled in the plaintiff’s ponds were the result of the defendants’ operations in changing the channel of the brook for some distance and' placing it in a new channel of freshly excavated earth and from their depositing earth and fill in the bed of the brook.” Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Action to enjoin interference with the natural flow of water in a stream, to direct the removal of material deposited in the stream and restoration of the stream to its original condition, and for damages. The Huntley Estates Corporations appeal from a money judgment in favor of plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals on the ground that the judgment was inadequate. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See, e.g., Mairs v. Manhattan Real Estate Assn., 89 N. Y. 498; McCormick v. Horan, 81 N. Y. 86; Foot v, Bronson, 4 Lans. 47; Johnston v. City of Galva, 316 Ill. 598 ; 56 Amer. Jur., Waters, §§ 416, 419; cf. Kossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh, 3 N Y 2d 583.) Finding number 15 is modified by adding the following at the end thereof: “ Most of the mud and silt that settled in the plaintiff’s ponds were the result of the defendants’ operations in changing the channel of the brook for some distance and' placing it in a new channel of freshly excavated earth and from their depositing earth and fill in the bed of the brook.” Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1054, 179 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-huntley-estates-of-greenburgh-inc-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack