Grau v. John McNulty & Sons Holding Co.

170 Misc. 1, 9 N.Y.S.2d 444
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 6, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 170 Misc. 1 (Grau v. John McNulty & Sons Holding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grau v. John McNulty & Sons Holding Co., 170 Misc. 1, 9 N.Y.S.2d 444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the erection of a metal smokestack in April, 1929, by the corporate defendant was a compliance with section 392, subdivision 9, paragraph (a), of the Building Code (N. Y. Code of Ord. chap. 5, art. 19) in force at the time, nevertheless, the duty devolved upon it to keep it in repair.

Five years after its erection the metal smokestack became rusted and dilapidated, and finally broke apart. The evidence shows [2]*2that the broken part extended from the chimney on the plaintiff’s dwelling house across the three-foot space over the plaintiff’s land to the east wall of the apartment house erected by the corporate defendant.

Although the ability to repair the broken part was always within the control of the plaintiff, nothing was done by her to repair or replace it, and damages are sought during the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, not for the cost of repair or the erection of a new smokestack in whole or in part, but for the extra cost of fuel and the expense of painting the woodwork and ceilings of her dwelling house necessitated as alleged by the smoke and soot caused by the back draft of the furnace in her house.

The judgment awarding damages testified to by plaintiff’s witnesses is erroneous, since such damages were inadequately established and did not flow reasonably and naturally from the broken smokestack.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the defendants, with costs. Appeal from order denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissed.

All concur. Present — Hammer, Frankenthaler and Noonan, JJ.

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

Related

30 E. 33rd St. Realty LLC v. PPF Off Two Park Avenue Owner, LLC
105 A.D.3d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Siegal
62 Misc. 2d 921 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 Misc. 1, 9 N.Y.S.2d 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grau-v-john-mcnulty-sons-holding-co-nyappterm-1939.