Russell v. Nostrand Athletic Club, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Russell v. Nostrand Athletic Club, Inc.

148 N.E. 756, 240 N.Y. 681, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 925

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 148 N.E. 756 (Russell v. Nostrand Athletic Club, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Nostrand Athletic Club, Inc., 148 N.E. 756, 240 N.Y. 681, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 925 (N.Y. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is evidence to sustain the new findings made by the Appellate Division that the boxing matches conducted by the defendant at night constituted a nuisance in this residential section of the city, where the homes had been built and occupied long before the arena was constructed. With the weight of the evidence, we have nothing to do. The judgment, however, is too broad. The only complaint is against the boxing matches, which attract the noisy boisterous crowd; the evidence only relates to these. The judgment, however, restrains the defendant from holding “ any gymnastic or athletic entertainment or exhibition or public exhibition or show or any other similar activity in the night-time.” This would prevent any theatrical performance or any other exhibition, no matter how quiet and peaceful the performance and the spectators might be.

*682 The judgment must be modified so as to restrain any prize fight, boxing exhibition, boxing contest, wrestling contest or any other similar activity in the night-time, plaintiffs to have the right to apply at the foot of this judgment for further relief as to any exhibition claimed to be an actiyity similar to those specifically restrained. As thus modified, the judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Pound, J., absent.

Judgment accordingly. •

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

Per Curiam.

There is evidence to sustain the new findings made by the Appellate Division that the boxing matches conducted by the defendant at night constituted a nuisance in this residential section of the city, where the homes had been built and occupied long before the arena was constructed. With the weight of the evidence, we have nothing to do. The judgment, however, is too broad. The only complaint is against the boxing matches, which attract the noisy boisterous crowd; the evidence only relates to these. The judgment, however, restrains the defendant from holding “ any gymnastic or athletic entertainment or exhibition or public exhibition or show or any other similar activity in the night-time.” This would prevent any theatrical performance or any other exhibition, no matter how quiet and peaceful the performance and the spectators might be.

*682 The judgment must be modified so as to restrain any prize fight, boxing exhibition, boxing contest, wrestling contest or any other similar activity in the night-time, plaintiffs to have the right to apply at the foot of this judgment for further relief as to any exhibition claimed to be an actiyity similar to those specifically restrained. As thus modified, the judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Pound, J., absent.

Judgment accordingly. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.E. 756, 240 N.Y. 681, 1925 N.Y. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-nostrand-athletic-club-inc-ny-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack