Harnik v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harnik v. Levine

281 A.D. 878, 120 N.Y.S.2d 62

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 878 (Harnik v. Levine) 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

Harnik v. Levine, 281 A.D. 878, 120 N.Y.S.2d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for civil damages in plaintiffs’ favor against defendant for double parking, the determination of the Appellate Term affirming an order and judgment of the Municipal Court in plaintiffs’ favor should be reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, on the ground that under the circumstances disclosed, defendant’s act was not of such duration as to constitute a nuisance, and accordingly no sufficient basis for any actionable damages to either plaintiff was alleged or established. Settle order on notice.

Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in all courts. Settle order on notice. [202 Misc. 648.] [See 282 App. Div. 684.] ■

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

Per Curiam.

In this action for civil damages in plaintiffs’ favor against defendant for double parking, the determination of the Appellate Term affirming an order and judgment of the Municipal Court in plaintiffs’ favor should be reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, on the ground that under the circumstances disclosed, defendant’s act was not of such duration as to constitute a nuisance, and accordingly no sufficient basis for any actionable damages to either plaintiff was alleged or established. Settle order on notice.

Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the appellant in all courts. Settle order on notice. [202 Misc. 648.] [See 282 App. Div. 684.] ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 878, 120 N.Y.S.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harnik-v-levine-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack