Jones v. County of Oneida

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. County of Oneida

263 A.D. 794, 31 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4962

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 794 (Jones v. County of Oneida) 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

Jones v. County of Oneida, 263 A.D. 794, 31 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The wrong to plaintiff was a continuing one, with damages constantly recurring. He was obliged to file a claim with specified county officials within three months after the damages which he sought to collect were sustained. (County Law, § 6-a.) The period for which he could recover damages commenced three months before the presentation of the claim (Thomann v. City of Rochester, 256 N. Y. 165, 170) and in this action at law continued up to the commencement of the action. (Thomann v. City of Rochester, supra, 171.) It was error for the court to permit the jury to assess damages which accrued more than three months before the filing of the claim. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an injunction action.) Present • — • Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The wrong to plaintiff was a continuing one, with damages constantly recurring. He was obliged to file a claim with specified county officials within three months after the damages which he sought to collect were sustained. (County Law, § 6-a.) The period for which he could recover damages commenced three months before the presentation of the claim (Thomann v. City of Rochester, 256 N. Y. 165, 170) and in this action at law continued up to the commencement of the action. (Thomann v. City of Rochester, supra, 171.) It was error for the court to permit the jury to assess damages which accrued more than three months before the filing of the claim. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an injunction action.) Present • — • Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 794, 31 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-county-of-oneida-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack