Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co.

250 A.D. 731, 293 N.Y.S. 527, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8652

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 250 A.D. 731 (Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co.) 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

Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co., 250 A.D. 731, 293 N.Y.S. 527, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, based on contract, to recover damages to the respondent’s building, alleged to have been caused by the appellant’s operations in connection with the construction of a section of the Rapid Transit Subway under a contract between the appellant and the city of New York, judgment, and order dated May 22, 1936, modified so as to allow interest on the reduced verdict of $2,000 from November 15, 1933, the date of the commencement of the action, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Appeal from order of May 4, 1936, dismissed. In our opinion, upon this record the respondent was entitled to interest upon the reduced verdict only from the date of the commencement of this action, as the date prior thereto, when damage accrued, was not made clear. (Freedman v. Hart & Early Co., Inc., N. Y. L. J. Feb. 20,1935, p. 907.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

— In an action, based on contract, to recover damages to the respondent’s building, alleged to have been caused by the appellant’s operations in connection with the construction of a section of the Rapid Transit Subway under a contract between the appellant and the city of New York, judgment, and order dated May 22, 1936, modified so as to allow interest on the reduced verdict of $2,000 from November 15, 1933, the date of the commencement of the action, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Appeal from order of May 4, 1936, dismissed. In our opinion, upon this record the respondent was entitled to interest upon the reduced verdict only from the date of the commencement of this action, as the date prior thereto, when damage accrued, was not made clear. (Freedman v. Hart & Early Co., Inc., N. Y. L. J. Feb. 20,1935, p. 907.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 731, 293 N.Y.S. 527, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aronowsky-v-goldberger-raabin-co-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack