Naramore v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naramore v. State

258 A.D. 930, 16 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7617

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1939

DocketClaim No. 23781

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 930 (Naramore v. State) 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

Naramore v. State, 258 A.D. 930, 16 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and ■claim (dismissed. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved ¡and Reversed-and new findings and conclusions made. Memorandum: There was ¡evidence to sustain -the finding -that the .State was negligent in suddenly releasing into Irondequoit-creek large-and unusual quantities of water from the Barge Canal at the seventeen-mile level in Monroe county, taking into consideration the fact that Irondequoit creek was .frozen over and the .pond in front of claimant’s dam was -likewise frozen to a depth of .about two feet and .that claimant’s dam failed due to the action of this water upon the ice at the dam. The evidence, however, is quite conclusive that the claimant was eontributorily negEgent in that he failed to maintain, as he had done in previous years, a channel in the ice in front of his dam so as to permit excessive quantities of water to flow over the dam and to [931]*931prevent the thermal expansion of the ice against the dam. The finding that claimant was free from negligence is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment is for claimant on a claim for damages resulting from negligent operation of the Barge Canal) -Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, J..

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

— Judgment reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and ■claim (dismissed. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved ¡and Reversed-and new findings and conclusions made. Memorandum: There was ¡evidence to sustain -the finding -that the .State was negligent in suddenly releasing into Irondequoit-creek large-and unusual quantities of water from the Barge Canal at the seventeen-mile level in Monroe county, taking into consideration the fact that Irondequoit creek was .frozen over and the .pond in front of claimant’s dam was -likewise frozen to a depth of .about two feet and .that claimant’s dam failed due to the action of this water upon the ice at the dam. The evidence, however, is quite conclusive that the claimant was eontributorily negEgent in that he failed to maintain, as he had done in previous years, a channel in the ice in front of his dam so as to permit excessive quantities of water to flow over the dam and to [931]*931prevent the thermal expansion of the ice against the dam. The finding that claimant was free from negligence is contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment is for claimant on a claim for damages resulting from negligent operation of the Barge Canal) -Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, J..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 930, 16 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naramore-v-state-nyappdiv-1939.