Jones v. Gebhardt

277 A.D.2d 935

This text of 277 A.D.2d 935 (Jones v. Gebhardt) 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. Gebhardt, 277 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Taylor, P. J., and Vaughan, J., who [936]*936dissent and vote for reversal and for granting a new trial in the following memorandum: We dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial. Implicit in the verdict is the finding that the defendant by its act in removing the culvert from underneath the railroad embankment, blocked a watercourse. Plaintiff’s engineer gave the source of the stream as west of Vienna Avenue and its course as southerly in a definite watercourse through the swamp to the north of the railroad embankment. A finding to that effect is clearly against the weight of evidence. Moreover, the photographs indicate at best a flooding of a temporary nature due to surface water rather than of a permanent nature which would follow the blocking of a watercourse. (The judgment appealed from is for plaintiffs in an action for damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiffs’ summer property by reason of negligent failure to maintain a culvert. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan,'Kimball and Piper, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-gebhardt-nyappdiv-1950.