Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co.

257 A.D. 1036, 13 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8980

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

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 1036 (Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co.) 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

Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co., 257 A.D. 1036, 13 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: There is evidence that the defendant maintained its building in violation of applicable provisions of the 1928 Building Code of City of Niagara Falls. The defendant was bound to conform its building to the requirements of this Code without waiting for an order from the building inspector and it was negligent in having failed to do so. (Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310, 314; McRickard v. Flint, 114 id. 222, 226; Arnold v. National Starch Co., 194 id. 42, 45; Amberg v. Kinley, 214 id. 531, 534; Goetz v. Duffy, 215 id. 53, 57; Sitzler v. Lathers, 223 App. Div. 675.) The verdict directed by the learned trial justice for the plaintiff finds support in the evidence and is not against its weight. We have examined the exceptions taken to rulings on the trial and find no errors of moment. The plaintiff’s injuries are of such character that we would not be justified in interfering with the damages awarded by the learned and experienced trial justice. The award was ample but not demonstrably excessive. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) P-esent — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: There is evidence that the defendant maintained its building in violation of applicable provisions of the 1928 Building Code of City of Niagara Falls. The defendant was bound to conform its building to the requirements of this Code without waiting for an order from the building inspector and it was negligent in having failed to do so. (Willy v. Mulledy, 78 N. Y. 310, 314; McRickard v. Flint, 114 id. 222, 226; Arnold v. National Starch Co., 194 id. 42, 45; Amberg v. Kinley, 214 id. 531, 534; Goetz v. Duffy, 215 id. 53, 57; Sitzler v. Lathers, 223 App. Div. 675.) The verdict directed by the learned trial justice for the plaintiff finds support in the evidence and is not against its weight. We have examined the exceptions taken to rulings on the trial and find no errors of moment. The plaintiff’s injuries are of such character that we would not be justified in interfering with the damages awarded by the learned and experienced trial justice. The award was ample but not demonstrably excessive. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) P-esent — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1036, 13 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzu-v-darojo-realty-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack