McKenzie v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKenzie v. City of New York

119 A.D. 60, 103 N.Y.S. 855, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859

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

DecidedApril 19, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D. 60 (McKenzie v. City of New York) 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

McKenzie v. City of New York, 119 A.D. 60, 103 N.Y.S. 855, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, J.

The action is for damages to personal property caused by an over- . flow from-one of the defendant’s sowers, The plaintiff had j.udg[61]*61ment. It appears that the water backed up through the house connection and entered the cellar through an opening in the floor eight feet below the curb. The plaintiff testified that the water ■ had not entered the cellar before during, the year that he had occupied the premises. Two witnesses who occupied property in the neighborhood testified that their premises had been flooded on prior occasions' by water entering through the house connections and from the manholes in the street, and a former assistant engineer of the defendant testified that the sewers had overflowed in that neighborhood during heavy rainstorms, biit it is undisputed that the territory concerning which said witnesses testified was drained by what was termed the Wallabout system and that the plaintiff’s premises were connected- with an entirely different system. There is, therefore, no evidence upon. which to base a finding of negligence in any way affecting the plaintiff, and the decision of this court in Ebbets v. City of New York (111 App. Div. 364) is controlling.

The judgment should be reversed.

Woodward, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred. '

Judgment reversed and new trial'granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Miller, J.

The action is for damages to personal property caused by an over- . flow from-one of the defendant’s sowers, The plaintiff had j.udg[61]*61ment. It appears that the water backed up through the house connection and entered the cellar through an opening in the floor eight feet below the curb. The plaintiff testified that the water ■ had not entered the cellar before during, the year that he had occupied the premises. Two witnesses who occupied property in the neighborhood testified that their premises had been flooded on prior occasions' by water entering through the house connections and from the manholes in the street, and a former assistant engineer of the defendant testified that the sewers had overflowed in that neighborhood during heavy rainstorms, biit it is undisputed that the territory concerning which said witnesses testified was drained by what was termed the Wallabout system and that the plaintiff’s premises were connected- with an entirely different system. There is, therefore, no evidence upon. which to base a finding of negligence in any way affecting the plaintiff, and the decision of this court in Ebbets v. City of New York (111 App. Div. 364) is controlling.

The judgment should be reversed.

Woodward, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred. '

Judgment reversed and new trial'granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D. 60, 103 N.Y.S. 855, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack