Health Department of New York v. Hamm

New York Court of Common Pleas

Health Department of New York v. Hamm

24 N.Y.S. 730, 4 Misc. 602, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 938

DecidedAugust 9, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 24 N.Y.S. 730 (Health Department of New York v. Hamm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Health Department of New York v. Hamm, 24 N.Y.S. 730, 4 Misc. 602, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 938 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The evidence is, in our opinion, conclusive that defendant’s buildings were not constructed, in respect to light, air, ventilation, and drainage, agreeably to the plans and specifications, approved by the health department in the city of Hew York, pursuant to the authority vested in it at the time by the consolidation act, (Laws 1882, c. 410, § 661.) In fact, so far as the cellar arches and supporting columns were concerhed, this was conceded by defendant, whose only excuse for having deviated from the approved plan was that it was permitted by an inspector of the health department, but whose authority to grant such permission, thus nullifying the resolution of the board, was not even attempted to be sustained by defendant. It was also admitted by defendant that the skylight over the main stairs, which the plan required, was not provided for. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The evidence is, in our opinion, conclusive that defendant’s buildings were not constructed, in respect to light, air, ventilation, and drainage, agreeably to the plans and specifications, approved by the health department in the city of Hew York, pursuant to the authority vested in it at the time by the consolidation act, (Laws 1882, c. 410, § 661.) In fact, so far as the cellar arches and supporting columns were concerhed, this was conceded by defendant, whose only excuse for having deviated from the approved plan was that it was permitted by an inspector of the health department, but whose authority to grant such permission, thus nullifying the resolution of the board, was not even attempted to be sustained by defendant. It was also admitted by defendant that the skylight over the main stairs, which the plan required, was not provided for. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.Y.S. 730, 4 Misc. 602, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/health-department-of-new-york-v-hamm-nyctcompl-1893.