Kiley v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kiley v. State

74 A.D.2d 917, 426 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10723

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1980

DocketClaim No. 61507

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 917 (Kiley v. State) 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

Kiley v. State, 74 A.D.2d 917, 426 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim to recover property damages for trespass and negligence predicated on defendant’s failure to properly maintain its salt stockpiles, with the alleged result that the claimant’s well water became contaminated, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims, entered August 27, 1979, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the claimant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The preponderance of evidence, particularly the testimony of the claimant’s two experts, supports the inference that the salt pollution which contaminated the claimant’s well was caused by the failure of the State to properly maintain its salt stockpiles. (See Meehan v State of New York, 95 Misc 2d 678.) Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim to recover property damages for trespass and negligence predicated on defendant’s failure to properly maintain its salt stockpiles, with the alleged result that the claimant’s well water became contaminated, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims, entered August 27, 1979, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the claimant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The preponderance of evidence, particularly the testimony of the claimant’s two experts, supports the inference that the salt pollution which contaminated the claimant’s well was caused by the failure of the State to properly maintain its salt stockpiles. (See Meehan v State of New York, 95 Misc 2d 678.) Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 917, 426 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiley-v-state-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack