Cohn v. Tucker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohn v. Tucker

247 A.D. 887

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

DecidedApril 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 887 (Cohn v. Tucker) 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

Cohn v. Tucker, 247 A.D. 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of an obstruction placed and maintained by defendant Tucker upon her property, in violation of a setback covenant. On appeal by defendant Tucker, judgment granting such equitable relief and order denying defendant Tucker’s motion to set aside the judgment and to refer the matter to the official referee for a rehearing unanimously affirmed, with costs. On appeal by plaintiff, judgment, in so far as it fails to award her costs, unanimously' affirmed, without costs. By the stipulation that the referee might fix damages instead of directing the removal of the building, the plaintiff, in the circumstances here shown, in view of what had previously transpired, did not waive her right to the equitable relief sought. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

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

Action for a mandatory injunction compelling the removal of an obstruction placed and maintained by defendant Tucker upon her property, in violation of a setback covenant. On appeal by defendant Tucker, judgment granting such equitable relief and order denying defendant Tucker’s motion to set aside the judgment and to refer the matter to the official referee for a rehearing unanimously affirmed, with costs. On appeal by plaintiff, judgment, in so far as it fails to award her costs, unanimously' affirmed, without costs. By the stipulation that the referee might fix damages instead of directing the removal of the building, the plaintiff, in the circumstances here shown, in view of what had previously transpired, did not waive her right to the equitable relief sought. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohn-v-tucker-nyappdiv-1936.