Pakas v. Hurley

149 A.D. 909, 133 N.Y.S. 499
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1912·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Scott, J.:

We have carefully re-examined this case, and remain of the opinion that the judgment must be reversed and a newtrial granted, and this for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Miller on the former hearing. The slight discrepancy between the facts as stated in that opinion and as they appeared by the evidence is unimportant, if, as we consider the true measure of damage is the amounts of rents eoEeeted for stores and apartments, less the sums actually and necessarily expended in so running the buüding as to retain the tenants and so make any coEection of rents possible. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appeEantto abide the event. Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin and Clarke, JJ., concurred. Laughlin, J., dissented.

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

Pakas v. Hurley, 149 A.D. 909, 133 N.Y.S. 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

149 A.D. 909 (Pakas v. Hurley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pakas v. Hurley
154 A.D. 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)