Moody v. Green

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moody v. Green

265 A.D. 940, 38 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6655

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 A.D. 940 (Moody v. Green) 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

Moody v. Green, 265 A.D. 940, 38 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Resettled judgment in so far as it dismisses the cross complaint of appellant The City of Xew York against Joel Green and 248 Floyd Street Realty Corporation reversed on the law and the facts, with one bill of costs, and judgment directed on the law in favor of The City of Xew York against Joel Green and 248 Floyd Street Realty Corporation, with costs. The 248 Floyd Street Realty Corporation leased the premises to Joel Green upon a month to month basis for a public purpose and was thus responsible for the nuisance that existed at the last letting. (Kilmer v. White, 254 N. Y. 64, 69.) The jury must necessarily have found that the encroachment upon the sidewalk area existed at the time of the last monthly letting and that the owner failed to abate the nuisance. For this the owner as well as the tenant is primarily liable. (Trustees of Canandaigua v. Foster, 156 N. Y. 354; Zolezzi V. Bruce-Brown, 243 N. Y. 490.) Both tenant and owner were guilty of malfeasance in that they obstructed the sidewalk without any permit. The liability of the city was based upon its failure to inspect and hence it was guilty of passive negligence. It follows that it may recover over from those who actually created the condition. (Toth v. Kennedy & Smith, Inc., 259 App. Div. 855; Doyle v. Union Railway Co., 276 N. Y. 453.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Resettled judgment in so far as it dismisses the cross complaint of appellant The City of Xew York against Joel Green and 248 Floyd Street Realty Corporation reversed on the law and the facts, with one bill of costs, and judgment directed on the law in favor of The City of Xew York against Joel Green and 248 Floyd Street Realty Corporation, with costs. The 248 Floyd Street Realty Corporation leased the premises to Joel Green upon a month to month basis for a public purpose and was thus responsible for the nuisance that existed at the last letting. (Kilmer v. White, 254 N. Y. 64, 69.) The jury must necessarily have found that the encroachment upon the sidewalk area existed at the time of the last monthly letting and that the owner failed to abate the nuisance. For this the owner as well as the tenant is primarily liable. (Trustees of Canandaigua v. Foster, 156 N. Y. 354; Zolezzi V. Bruce-Brown, 243 N. Y. 490.) Both tenant and owner were guilty of malfeasance in that they obstructed the sidewalk without any permit. The liability of the city was based upon its failure to inspect and hence it was guilty of passive negligence. It follows that it may recover over from those who actually created the condition. (Toth v. Kennedy & Smith, Inc., 259 App. Div. 855; Doyle v. Union Railway Co., 276 N. Y. 453.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D. 940, 38 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-green-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack