Haskell v. State
This text of 258 A.D. 930 (Haskell v. State) 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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
258 A.D. 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haskell-v-state-nyappdiv-1939.