Connor v. . State

New York Court of Appeals

Connor v. . State

46 N.E. 1145, 152 N.Y. 49, 6 E.H. Smith 49, 1897 N.Y. LEXIS 939

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 N.E. 1145 (Connor v. . State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connor v. . State, 46 N.E. 1145, 152 N.Y. 49, 6 E.H. Smith 49, 1897 N.Y. LEXIS 939 (N.Y. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, J.

The claim against the state was for the damages caused to the building of the appellant, in Mechanicville, Saratoga county, N. Y., by the leakage of water from the Champlain canal, in May, 1891. There was evidence that the aggregate expenditure of $426.93 would be required in mason and carpenter work to repair the injury done by the water, which came into the cellar. There was, also, evidence that there was a decrease in the rental value of the house of $7.50 a month, as a result of the presence and action of the water in the house during the time intervening between the leakage into the cellar and the subsequent construction by the state of a sewer or drain. The Board of Claims found the fact of the leakage from the canal into the claimant’s premises, to the damage of her building, and that the damages which she sustained were caused by the negligence of the state; but the award was only for $50. There was no inspection of the *51 premises by the board and the evidence as to the damage and as to the cost of repairing was uncontradicted. In view of the evidence and of the findings, no reason is to he perceived for the smallness of the award made; except it he that the opinion obtained that no damages were recoverable in such a case, except for the loss of rental value. We think that the claimant was entitled to recover not only for the actual loss of rental value, but for the expense necessary to repair the damages occasioned to the building by the water. In the Slavin case, which was tried at the same time as was the present one, and which arose upon a similar state of facts, we had occasion to consider the questions which are here presented and the true rule of law, which should guide the Board of Claims in its award, was there stated. As the discussion had then was complete and is in point, nothing need be added to it now.

The award should be reversed and the claim remitted to the Board of Claims for further hearing.

All concur.

Award reversed.

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

Gray, J.

The claim against the state was for the damages caused to the building of the appellant, in Mechanicville, Saratoga county, N. Y., by the leakage of water from the Champlain canal, in May, 1891. There was evidence that the aggregate expenditure of $426.93 would be required in mason and carpenter work to repair the injury done by the water, which came into the cellar. There was, also, evidence that there was a decrease in the rental value of the house of $7.50 a month, as a result of the presence and action of the water in the house during the time intervening between the leakage into the cellar and the subsequent construction by the state of a sewer or drain. The Board of Claims found the fact of the leakage from the canal into the claimant’s premises, to the damage of her building, and that the damages which she sustained were caused by the negligence of the state; but the award was only for $50. There was no inspection of the *51 premises by the board and the evidence as to the damage and as to the cost of repairing was uncontradicted. In view of the evidence and of the findings, no reason is to he perceived for the smallness of the award made; except it he that the opinion obtained that no damages were recoverable in such a case, except for the loss of rental value. We think that the claimant was entitled to recover not only for the actual loss of rental value, but for the expense necessary to repair the damages occasioned to the building by the water. In the Slavin case, which was tried at the same time as was the present one, and which arose upon a similar state of facts, we had occasion to consider the questions which are here presented and the true rule of law, which should guide the Board of Claims in its award, was there stated. As the discussion had then was complete and is in point, nothing need be added to it now.

The award should be reversed and the claim remitted to the Board of Claims for further hearing.

All concur.

Award reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 N.E. 1145, 152 N.Y. 49, 6 E.H. Smith 49, 1897 N.Y. LEXIS 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connor-v-state-ny-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack