Antonelli v. Morgilli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antonelli v. Morgilli

235 A.D. 815

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

DecidedApril 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 815 (Antonelli v. Morgilli) 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

Antonelli v. Morgilli, 235 A.D. 815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiffs, with costs, directing defendant to remove the encroachment or pay to plaintiffs damages in the sum of $250. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this decision are reversed and new findings in accordance therewith will be made. In our opinion, the judgment appealed from is plainly erroneous in that it adjudges that there is no encroachment of defendants’ building upon plaintiffs’ land. This [816]*816encroachment, although a slight one, was undisputed, and the Special Term should have given plaintiffs judgment to compel the removal of the encroachment or to pay plaintiffs the damage sustained thereby. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiffs, with costs, directing defendant to remove the encroachment or pay to plaintiffs damages in the sum of $250. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this decision are reversed and new findings in accordance therewith will be made. In our opinion, the judgment appealed from is plainly erroneous in that it adjudges that there is no encroachment of defendants’ building upon plaintiffs’ land. This [816]*816encroachment, although a slight one, was undisputed, and the Special Term should have given plaintiffs judgment to compel the removal of the encroachment or to pay plaintiffs the damage sustained thereby. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonelli-v-morgilli-nyappdiv-1932.