Lightboro Realty Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lightboro Realty Corp. v. City of New York

192 Misc. 947, 81 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2814

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 Misc. 947 (Lightboro Realty Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Lightboro Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 192 Misc. 947, 81 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ciiriam.

The violation of statutory duty of the city to furnish water (L. 1833, ch. 36; Brush v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 352, 360-361) due to failure of a minor employee to open two water gates shut because of a temporary water difficulty, constitutes negligence. Such claim, if any, that a landlord-owner has due to water shortage of tenants and the employment of plumbers, engineers, experts and workmen to examine and inspect plumbing installations in a multiple dwelling and the finding that same were in good order and not responsible for such shortage, which the city employees found and remedied by opening the closed water gates, sounds in negligence (Guardian Trust Co. v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57; Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N. Y. 160; Steitz v. City of Beacon, 295 N. Y. 51; Oakes Mfg. Co. v. City of New York, 206 N. Y. 221; Canavan v. City of Mechanicville, 229 N. Y. 473). The notice of claim here was not “ £worn to ” as required by statute for the maintenance of an action in negligence and is insufficient in law.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Hammer, Hoestadter and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Ciiriam.

The violation of statutory duty of the city to furnish water (L. 1833, ch. 36; Brush v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 352, 360-361) due to failure of a minor employee to open two water gates shut because of a temporary water difficulty, constitutes negligence. Such claim, if any, that a landlord-owner has due to water shortage of tenants and the employment of plumbers, engineers, experts and workmen to examine and inspect plumbing installations in a multiple dwelling and the finding that same were in good order and not responsible for such shortage, which the city employees found and remedied by opening the closed water gates, sounds in negligence (Guardian Trust Co. v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57; Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N. Y. 160; Steitz v. City of Beacon, 295 N. Y. 51; Oakes Mfg. Co. v. City of New York, 206 N. Y. 221; Canavan v. City of Mechanicville, 229 N. Y. 473). The notice of claim here was not “ £worn to ” as required by statute for the maintenance of an action in negligence and is insufficient in law.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Hammer, Hoestadter and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Misc. 947, 81 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lightboro-realty-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack