Motyka v. City of Amsterdam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Motyka v. City of Amsterdam

7 A.D.2d 760, 179 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 760 (Motyka v. City of Amsterdam) 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

Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 7 A.D.2d 760, 179 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment and order dismissing the complaint herein at the close of the plaintiffs’ case for failure of proof. The action was tried at a term of court in Montgomery County on February 7, 1957 before the Honorable Andrew W. Ryan. The action is in negligence. The city is charged with violation of the Multiple Residence Law and the individual owner with owning and maintaining a defective and unsafe building and allowing the use of a dangerous and defective instrument therein (oil stove), all of which created a nuisance. There is nothing in the present case as to the law or facts which differs from a case previously tried and dismissed and thereafter affirmed by this court. (Rivera v. City of Amsterdam, 5 A D 2d 637.) Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present—Foster, P. J., Bergan, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment and order dismissing the complaint herein at the close of the plaintiffs’ case for failure of proof. The action was tried at a term of court in Montgomery County on February 7, 1957 before the Honorable Andrew W. Ryan. The action is in negligence. The city is charged with violation of the Multiple Residence Law and the individual owner with owning and maintaining a defective and unsafe building and allowing the use of a dangerous and defective instrument therein (oil stove), all of which created a nuisance. There is nothing in the present case as to the law or facts which differs from a case previously tried and dismissed and thereafter affirmed by this court. (Rivera v. City of Amsterdam, 5 A D 2d 637.) Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present—Foster, P. J., Bergan, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 760, 179 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motyka-v-city-of-amsterdam-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack