Lanman & Kemp, Inc. v. Foundation Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lanman & Kemp, Inc. v. Foundation Co.

140 Misc. 159, 250 N.Y.S. 117, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1301

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 14, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 140 Misc. 159 (Lanman & Kemp, Inc. v. Foundation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lanman & Kemp, Inc. v. Foundation Co., 140 Misc. 159, 250 N.Y.S. 117, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Reading the complaint in the light of respondent’s admissions it appears that defendant, the person causing the excavation to be made on the adjoining property, did not “ at all times,” as required by the ordinance (New York Code of Ordinances [Building Code], § 230, subd. 3), preserve plaintiff’s building from injury, and that defendant’s breach of duty required the immediate employment by plaintiff of competent engineers to ascertain the extent of the injury to the building, the cause of the damage and what was necessary to be done to protect the safety of plaintiff’s employees. It follows that, in addition to the duty performed by [160]*160defendant of repairing the damage to plaintiff’s building, defendant is obligated to reimburse plaintiff in the sum of $400, being the reasonable value of the services necessarily performed by the engineers.

Judgment reversed, with ten dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount prayed for in the complaint, with costs.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Peters, JJ.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Reading the complaint in the light of respondent’s admissions it appears that defendant, the person causing the excavation to be made on the adjoining property, did not “ at all times,” as required by the ordinance (New York Code of Ordinances [Building Code], § 230, subd. 3), preserve plaintiff’s building from injury, and that defendant’s breach of duty required the immediate employment by plaintiff of competent engineers to ascertain the extent of the injury to the building, the cause of the damage and what was necessary to be done to protect the safety of plaintiff’s employees. It follows that, in addition to the duty performed by [160]*160defendant of repairing the damage to plaintiff’s building, defendant is obligated to reimburse plaintiff in the sum of $400, being the reasonable value of the services necessarily performed by the engineers.

Judgment reversed, with ten dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount prayed for in the complaint, with costs.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Peters, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 Misc. 159, 250 N.Y.S. 117, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanman-kemp-inc-v-foundation-co-nyappterm-1931.