Kessler v. the Ansonia

171 N.E. 704, 253 N.Y. 453, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 854
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 6, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 171 N.E. 704 (Kessler v. the Ansonia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kessler v. the Ansonia, 171 N.E. 704, 253 N.Y. 453, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 854 (N.Y. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, under a written lease, occupied an apartment in a building owned by the defendant. In a living room of the apartment she had stored valuable furniture, paintings and rugs. The room was isolated from the remainder of the apartment by doors which were at all times closed. On a certain morning, a pipe, supplying steam to a radiator in the living room, burst, with the result that steam, escaping in great volume, did serious damage to the personal property stored. In the absence of any explanation, it was the reasonable inference, arising from the explosion, without further proof, that the steam pipe was defective, and, therefore, that the defendant was negligent. A repairman, sent to the apartment by the management, reported to the plain *455 tiff that he could do nothing ‘‘ as the pipes are old and rusty.” Nothing was done, although the defendant had been given timely warning and knew of the defective piping.' Therefore, the clause of the lease exempting the defendant from liability for damage caused by the leakage of steam did not apply. That clause means simply “ that the landlord is not to be liable for damages caused by wear and tear, or inherent defects, or the action of the elements, although by the exercise of active vigilance he might have prevented such damages; but it does not exempt him from his liability to repair actual defects, when called to his attention, or from acts of affirmative negligence.” (Per Mr. Justice Lehman in Drescher Rothberg Co. v. Landeker, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1025.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Meyer Jewelry Co. v. Professional Building Co.
307 S.W.2d 517 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1957)
Freddi-Gail, Inc. v. Royal Holding Corp.
111 A.2d 636 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Kuzmiak v. Brookchester
111 A.2d 425 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Altman v. Central New York Building Corp.
201 Misc. 27 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1951)
Kay v. Cain
154 F.2d 305 (D.C. Circuit, 1946)
Nashua Gummed & Coated Paper Co. v. Noyes Buick Co.
41 A.2d 920 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1945)
Franklin Fire Insurance v. Noll
58 N.E.2d 947 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1945)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Colby Realty Corp.
260 A.D. 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York
174 Misc. 967 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Nyamco Associates, Inc. v. Cherniaeff
152 Misc. 306 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Watson v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
147 Misc. 697 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1932)
Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.
180 N.E. 245 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Waterside Holding Corp. v. Lask
233 A.D. 456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 N.E. 704, 253 N.Y. 453, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kessler-v-the-ansonia-ny-1930.