City of Mount Vernon v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Mount Vernon v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

208 A.D. 738

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1924·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The amount paid by the respondent in settlement of the Mooney judgment was not a part of the expense of making the crossing, but a sum" required to be paid by respondent by reason of its negligence. Its inclusion in the account was not within the scope of the order of reference, and was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The order is, therefore, modified, in so far as it confirms the report of the referee in respect to conclusion of law marked “ II,” which is hereby reversed, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

The amount paid by the respondent in settlement of the Mooney judgment was not a part of the expense of making the crossing, but a sum" required to be paid by respondent by reason of its negligence. Its inclusion in the account was not within the scope of the order of reference, and was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The order is, therefore, modified, in so far as it confirms the report of the referee in respect to conclusion of law marked “ II,” which is hereby reversed, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

City of Mount Vernon v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 208 A.D. 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

208 A.D. 738 (City of Mount Vernon v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related