Kelly v. Washburn

178 A.D. 664, 165 N.Y.S. 891, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6555
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 A.D. 664 (Kelly v. Washburn) 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
Kelly v. Washburn, 178 A.D. 664, 165 N.Y.S. 891, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Putnam, J.:

This contract of March fourth passed title to the building on signing and delivery of that instrument. There was a legal severance of the building from the land, and the house-wreckers were at once vested with title to the building. (Melton v. Fullerton-Weaver Realty Co., 214 N. Y. 571.)

The liability having been left to the jury on the theory of negligence, appellants contend that, therefore, it was necessary to show that at the time of the accident the premises were under their control, with a continuing legal duty on them to use care.

Although prior to the accident defendants had sold the building to be demolished and removed, such severance of the title to that building did not release the landowner from any existing liability for a dilapidated structure so unsafe as to threaten the wayfarer on the public street. We are not called on to pass on the landowner’s liability where the danger and menace from the building begins after its legal severance from the land. Even the deed of .one defendant’s undivided interest in the land did not exonerate such owner from liability, if the subsequent accident happened because [666]*666of his want of care before delivery of the deed. Negligence of this degree becomes similar to the cause of action for nuisance, because its effect may be a direct danger to the public. (Junkermann v. Tilyou Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404, 408.)

There being no error in the rulings or the charge, I advise that the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Present—Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Maccarini v. New Haven Trap Rock Co.
148 F. Supp. 271 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Vousden v. United Cities Realty Corp.
194 A.D. 26 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.D. 664, 165 N.Y.S. 891, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-washburn-nyappdiv-1917.