O'Neill v. City of Port Jervis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. City of Port Jervis

227 A.D. 740, 236 N.Y.S. 860

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1929·Published

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. We are of opinion that on the facts presented by the record the alleged illegal obstruction was not the proximate cause of the accident. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Young and Seeger, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and for a new trial upon the ground that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding that the obstruction in the street was a nuisance for which both the owner and the city were responsible. (Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482.)

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. We are of opinion that on the facts presented by the record the alleged illegal obstruction was not the proximate cause of the accident. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Young and Seeger, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and for a new trial upon the ground that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding that the obstruction in the street was a nuisance for which both the owner and the city were responsible. (Sweet v. Perkins, 196 N. Y. 482.)

O'Neill v. City of Port Jervis, 227 A.D. 740, 236 N.Y.S. 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

227 A.D. 740 (O'Neill v. City of Port Jervis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related