Horn v. Glickman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Horn v. Glickman

121 A.D. 486, 106 N.Y.S. 1131, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D. 486 (Horn v. Glickman) 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

Horn v. Glickman, 121 A.D. 486, 106 N.Y.S. 1131, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

-The defendant in. building a house on his-lot adjoining the plaintiffs’ house negligently and needlessly excavated under, their, fence ahd caused' it to fall. A strip of the plaintiffs’ soil three feet wide' also fell into the excavation, carrying with it their rose' bushes. The defendant -also- stored lumber on the plaintiffs’ roof, broke a .shutter, and his men' committed, acts of personal nuisance on the plaintiffs’- premises. . The defendant gave no evidence at all. The action is for damages for the trespasses: The justice gave'tlie plaintiffs a judgment for six cents, adding.insult to injury.' The technicalities of tlie counsel for the defendant which marked every step of the trial are deplorable! The. plaintiffs called a competent witness (the last witness, a builder) fd prove, the amount of damage, but his evidence was excluded, the justice remarking that he niust [487]*487rigidly enforce the rules of evidence. ' It cannot be said that the case was tried at all. ; It was simply a case of baiting the plaintiffs and their counsel by captious, frivolous and vexatious technicalities, which should not be tolerated, much'less favored by a court.

The judgment should be reversed.

Jenks, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred; Rich, J., concurred in result.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Gaynor, J.:

-The defendant in. building a house on his-lot adjoining the plaintiffs’ house negligently and needlessly excavated under, their, fence ahd caused' it to fall. A strip of the plaintiffs’ soil three feet wide' also fell into the excavation, carrying with it their rose' bushes. The defendant -also- stored lumber on the plaintiffs’ roof, broke a .shutter, and his men' committed, acts of personal nuisance on the plaintiffs’- premises. . The defendant gave no evidence at all. The action is for damages for the trespasses: The justice gave'tlie plaintiffs a judgment for six cents, adding.insult to injury.' The technicalities of tlie counsel for the defendant which marked every step of the trial are deplorable! The. plaintiffs called a competent witness (the last witness, a builder) fd prove, the amount of damage, but his evidence was excluded, the justice remarking that he niust [487]*487rigidly enforce the rules of evidence. ' It cannot be said that the case was tried at all. ; It was simply a case of baiting the plaintiffs and their counsel by captious, frivolous and vexatious technicalities, which should not be tolerated, much'less favored by a court.

The judgment should be reversed.

Jenks, Hooker and Miller, JJ., concurred; Rich, J., concurred in result.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D. 486, 106 N.Y.S. 1131, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horn-v-glickman-nyappdiv-1907.