Paternostro v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paternostro v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

159 A.D. 911, 144 N.Y.S. 282

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D. 911 (Paternostro v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) 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

Paternostro v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 159 A.D. 911, 144 N.Y.S. 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The evidence shows that the old system of drainage was continued until the new arrangement was completed in 1909. The question is whether meantime there was a negligent interruption of it. Of that there is not sufficient evidence. The evidence tends to show that the culvert continued effective. But the plaintiff testified to the free condition of his pipe, that there was water in it, and in the common drain as it met the culvert, but that no water came through to the west side. But he states that he saw the culvert. If the defendant had covered it, he could not have seen its end. He does not state that he saw any indica[912]*912tions that the embankment or material connected with the work had encroached on the outlet of the culvert. The stoppage of the culvert is not traced to any act of the defendant. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam:

The evidence shows that the old system of drainage was continued until the new arrangement was completed in 1909. The question is whether meantime there was a negligent interruption of it. Of that there is not sufficient evidence. The evidence tends to show that the culvert continued effective. But the plaintiff testified to the free condition of his pipe, that there was water in it, and in the common drain as it met the culvert, but that no water came through to the west side. But he states that he saw the culvert. If the defendant had covered it, he could not have seen its end. He does not state that he saw any indica[912]*912tions that the embankment or material connected with the work had encroached on the outlet of the culvert. The stoppage of the culvert is not traced to any act of the defendant. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D. 911, 144 N.Y.S. 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paternostro-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappdiv-1913.