Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Narrows Crossing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Narrows Crossing, Inc.

102 A.D.2d 704, 476 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18862

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

DecidedJune 7, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.2d 704 (Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Narrows Crossing, Inc.) 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

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Narrows Crossing, Inc., 102 A.D.2d 704, 476 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from the resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherman, J.), entered March 2, 1983, dismissed as subsumed, without costs. 11 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Evans, J.), entered August 18, 1983, modified, on the law and the facts, by increasing the award by $21,624.18, plus interest from the date of plaintiff’s payment, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs. H For the reasons stated by Justice Stecher in his opinion dated July 20,1980, plaintiff was entitled to recovery against defendant appellants. We agree with Justice Sherman’s conclusion, upon resettlement, that the Statute of Limitations had not run upon plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed for damages claimed on and after January 1,' 1972. The amount awarded by Justice Evans at the assessment should be increased by $21,624.18 plus interest from the date of payment. Plaintiff’s evidence amply supported an award in that amount for tax block No. 71,926, lot 11. We find no merit to the issues raised by defendants-appellants in their briefs. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Appeal from the resettled order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherman, J.), entered March 2, 1983, dismissed as subsumed, without costs. 11 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Evans, J.), entered August 18, 1983, modified, on the law and the facts, by increasing the award by $21,624.18, plus interest from the date of plaintiff’s payment, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs. H For the reasons stated by Justice Stecher in his opinion dated July 20,1980, plaintiff was entitled to recovery against defendant appellants. We agree with Justice Sherman’s conclusion, upon resettlement, that the Statute of Limitations had not run upon plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed for damages claimed on and after January 1,' 1972. The amount awarded by Justice Evans at the assessment should be increased by $21,624.18 plus interest from the date of payment. Plaintiff’s evidence amply supported an award in that amount for tax block No. 71,926, lot 11. We find no merit to the issues raised by defendants-appellants in their briefs. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.2d 704, 476 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-v-narrows-crossing-inc-nyappdiv-1984.