Sipala v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sipala v. Town of Huntington

20 A.D.2d 559, 245 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2710

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 559 (Sipala v. Town of Huntington) 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

Sipala v. Town of Huntington, 20 A.D.2d 559, 245 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injury to real and personal property because of the alleged negligence of the defendants in the design and construction of a sump and its appurtenances, as a result of which plaintiffs’ land was flooded, each defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 28, 1962 after trial upon a jury’s verdict, as reduced by the trial court, in favor of plaintiffs. Judgment modified on the law and the facts: (1) by striking out the provision directing recovery by the plaintiffs against the Town of Huntington, and (2) by substituting therefor a provision directing dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint as against the town. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs against the defendant Casfeld Homes, Inc., and with costs to the town against the plaintiffs. With respect to the defendant town, findings of fact contained in the jury’s verdict and in the jury’s answers to the special interrogatories, insofar as such findings may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed. In our opinion, there was a complete absence of proof: (1) that the specifications for the drainage of subdivision sites, promulgated by defendant town, were adopted by it without adequate study or lacked reasonable basis; or (2) that the town’s employees affirmatively supervised and directed the installation of the sump in an improper and defective manner. Under such circumstances, the town is not liable for plaintiffs’ damages (cf. Weiss v. Fote, 7 N Y 2d 579; Shaw v. Village of Hempstead, 11 A D 2d 789). The evidence, however, presented a question of fact as to whether the sump was negligently constructed by defendant Casfeld Homes, Inc., the owner of the property on which it was located; and in our opinion the record supports the findings of the jury on that issue (cf. Daly v. State of New York, 226 App. Div. 154). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for injury to real and personal property because of the alleged negligence of the defendants in the design and construction of a sump and its appurtenances, as a result of which plaintiffs’ land was flooded, each defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 28, 1962 after trial upon a jury’s verdict, as reduced by the trial court, in favor of plaintiffs. Judgment modified on the law and the facts: (1) by striking out the provision directing recovery by the plaintiffs against the Town of Huntington, and (2) by substituting therefor a provision directing dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint as against the town. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs against the defendant Casfeld Homes, Inc., and with costs to the town against the plaintiffs. With respect to the defendant town, findings of fact contained in the jury’s verdict and in the jury’s answers to the special interrogatories, insofar as such findings may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed. In our opinion, there was a complete absence of proof: (1) that the specifications for the drainage of subdivision sites, promulgated by defendant town, were adopted by it without adequate study or lacked reasonable basis; or (2) that the town’s employees affirmatively supervised and directed the installation of the sump in an improper and defective manner. Under such circumstances, the town is not liable for plaintiffs’ damages (cf. Weiss v. Fote, 7 N Y 2d 579; Shaw v. Village of Hempstead, 11 A D 2d 789). The evidence, however, presented a question of fact as to whether the sump was negligently constructed by defendant Casfeld Homes, Inc., the owner of the property on which it was located; and in our opinion the record supports the findings of the jury on that issue (cf. Daly v. State of New York, 226 App. Div. 154). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 559, 245 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sipala-v-town-of-huntington-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack