Corley v. Spitzer

235 A.D. 703
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1932·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal dismissed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term for the trial justice to make findings and direct the entry of judgment. The record contains no decision or proposed findings, although the memorandum decision required findings and judgment to be submitted. Apparently the judgment was entered on the mere unsigned memorandum of the court. Such a judgment has no validity. (Ventimiglia v. Eichner, 213 N. Y. 147; Langling Co. v. Elflein, 230 App. Div. 731.) The present judgment should be vacated and proposed findings submitted and passed upon, as the court directed. The amount of damages allowed seems to be excessive, for the value of the lot upon which the encroachment was made, as testified to by plaintiff’s expert, was only $800. Furthermore, as the defendants acted in good faith in pursuance of a survey they had made before erecting their garage, the judgment might well provide for permanent damages instead of an injunction. (Crocker v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 61 App. Div. 226; Amerman v. Deane, 132 N. Y. 355; Goldbacher v. Eggers, 38 Misc. 36; affd., 82 App. Div. 637; 179 N. Y. 551.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Cars-well, Tompkins and Davis, JJ.,Pconeur.

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

Corley v. Spitzer, 235 A.D. 703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

235 A.D. 703 (Corley v. Spitzer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Christopher v. Rosse
91 A.D.2d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Goodfarb v. Freedman
76 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
McGraw v. Selkis
157 Misc. 447 (New York Supreme Court, 1935)