Ruggiero v. Lockstrip Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruggiero v. Lockstrip Manufacturing Corp.

254 A.D. 783, 4 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7589

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

DecidedMay 27, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 783 (Ruggiero v. Lockstrip Manufacturing Corp.) 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

Ruggiero v. Lockstrip Manufacturing Corp., 254 A.D. 783, 4 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from operating its factory under conditions alleged to constitute a nuisance, and for damages. Judgment granting permanent injunction and denying damages reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to an action at law to recover damages, if any, suffered by the plaintiff. The evidence does not disclose a condition that justified a court of equity in granting a permanent injunction. There is a doubt whether the condition of which plaintiff complains constitutes a substantial annoyance and whether or not he has sustained substantial damages. In any event, under the circumstances disclosed in the proof, he should be relegated to an action at law to recover such damages, if any, as he has suffered. (Riedeman v. Mt. Morris Electric Light Co., 56 App. Div. 23, 27; Haber v. Paramount Ice Corporation, 239 id. 324; affd., 264 N. Y. 98; McCarty v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 189 id. 40, 46.) Findings of fact and the conclusion of law are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Action for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from operating its factory under conditions alleged to constitute a nuisance, and for damages. Judgment granting permanent injunction and denying damages reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, without prejudice to an action at law to recover damages, if any, suffered by the plaintiff. The evidence does not disclose a condition that justified a court of equity in granting a permanent injunction. There is a doubt whether the condition of which plaintiff complains constitutes a substantial annoyance and whether or not he has sustained substantial damages. In any event, under the circumstances disclosed in the proof, he should be relegated to an action at law to recover such damages, if any, as he has suffered. (Riedeman v. Mt. Morris Electric Light Co., 56 App. Div. 23, 27; Haber v. Paramount Ice Corporation, 239 id. 324; affd., 264 N. Y. 98; McCarty v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 189 id. 40, 46.) Findings of fact and the conclusion of law are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 783, 4 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggiero-v-lockstrip-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack