Bridgman v. Village of Hamburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bridgman v. Village of Hamburg

258 A.D. 847, 15 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7210

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 847 (Bridgman v. Village of Hamburg) 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

Bridgman v. Village of Hamburg, 258 A.D. 847, 15 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment so far as appealed from modified on the facts by extending the time for the payment of damages to and including the 1st day of June, 1940, and as modified affirmed, with costs to the respondents. Memorandum: This action was brought for damages past and permanent and the referee has determined the amount of the damages. We see no reason why they should be separated, as the damages, whether past or permanent, are damages. When the village pays these damages, of course it will be entitled to maintain this plant as though there had been a condemnation proceeding, but to raise the money it will be necessary to have a longer time than as already fixed by the judgment and we, therefore, modify the judgment by extending the time to pay or tender the damages to and including the 1st day of June, 1940. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an injunction action.) Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment so far as appealed from modified on the facts by extending the time for the payment of damages to and including the 1st day of June, 1940, and as modified affirmed, with costs to the respondents. Memorandum: This action was brought for damages past and permanent and the referee has determined the amount of the damages. We see no reason why they should be separated, as the damages, whether past or permanent, are damages. When the village pays these damages, of course it will be entitled to maintain this plant as though there had been a condemnation proceeding, but to raise the money it will be necessary to have a longer time than as already fixed by the judgment and we, therefore, modify the judgment by extending the time to pay or tender the damages to and including the 1st day of June, 1940. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an injunction action.) Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 847, 15 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridgman-v-village-of-hamburg-nyappdiv-1939.