Arout v. Azar

219 A.D. 260, 219 N.Y.S. 431, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10894
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 219 A.D. 260 (Arout v. Azar) 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
Arout v. Azar, 219 A.D. 260, 219 N.Y.S. 431, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was not entitled to treble damages under section 535 of the Real Property Law (as added by Laws of 1920, chap. 930), as directed by the court after the verdict of $500., That section applies where a person is disseized, ejected or put out of real property in a forcible manner. Plaintiff was neither disseized, ejected nor put out of her possession. The [261]*261defendants were guilty of a trespass. Furthermore, the section, which re-enacted section 1669 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only applies where the force is unusual, tends to bring about a breach of the peace, and the entry is with a strong hand, or a multitude of people, or in a riotous manner, or with personal violence, or with threat and menace to life and limb, or under circumstances which would • naturally inspire fear and lead one to apprehend danger of personal injury if he stood up ip. defense of his possession. (Hallock v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 201.) None of such conditions was present here. Besides, '.plaintiff was not entitled under the section named to treble damages Jor injuries to her personal property.

The judgment should be modified by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $500, with appropriate costs in the Trial Term, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present — Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $500, with appropriate costs in the Trial Term, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Pollack v. Macombs Inwood Corp.
52 Misc. 2d 563 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1966)
Jennings v. High Farms Corp.
35 Misc. 2d 80 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Launikitis v. Garcia
18 Misc. 2d 409 (New York County Courts, 1959)
Schoenbrun v. M. J. B. Holding Corp.
13 Misc. 2d 574 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Drinkhouse v. Parka Corp.
143 N.E.2d 767 (New York Court of Appeals, 1957)
Poppen v. Wadleigh
51 N.W.2d 75 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
Billig v. Nelson Properties, Inc.
166 Misc. 301 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1938)
Lewis v. Veen
222 A.D. 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 A.D. 260, 219 N.Y.S. 431, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arout-v-azar-nyappdiv-1927.