Haskell v. State

258 A.D. 930, 16 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7616
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1939·No. Claim No. 24690·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find in the record sufficient competent proof to establish that the flood damage in March, 1936, to claimant’s cottage property on the shore of Oneida Lake resulted from inadequate flood control facilities then maintained by the State of New York on the Oneida River at and near its dam at Caughdenoy and the negligent operation of such facilities as then existed at that location. We find no reversible errors in the rulings on evidence challenged by the appellant. All concur. (The judgment is for claimant on a claim for damages resulting from negligent operation of the Barge Canal.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Haskell v. State, 258 A.D. 930, 16 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

258 A.D. 930 (Haskell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Town of Vienna v. State
203 Misc. 1053 (New York State Court of Claims, 1953)
Taylor v. State of New York
96 N.E.2d 765 (New York Court of Appeals, 1951)
Black v. State
195 Misc. 484 (New York State Court of Claims, 1949)
Moltion v. State
193 Misc. 850 (New York State Court of Claims, 1948)
MacFarland v. State
177 Misc. 117 (New York State Court of Claims, 1941)
Slocum v. State
177 Misc. 114 (New York State Court of Claims, 1941)