Sterling v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sterling v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

243 A.D. 669

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 669 (Sterling v. New York State Electric & Gas 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

Sterling v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp., 243 A.D. 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. Matter considered on the merits. The stipulation extending the time to answer is construed as extending the time not only to answer but also to move or otherwise plead. Respondents state their position to be that there is only one cause of action, and that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint are pleaded as special damages to the riparian owner. The paragraphs mentioned seem to apply to a separate parcel of land. Irrespective of the seeming inadmissibility of evidence thereunder that question is, in the first instance, to be passed upon by the trial court. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser and Hefíernan, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., concurs in the result, except as to costs, and votes to award costs to the plaintiffs to abide the event.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. Matter considered on the merits. The stipulation extending the time to answer is construed as extending the time not only to answer but also to move or otherwise plead. Respondents state their position to be that there is only one cause of action, and that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint are pleaded as special damages to the riparian owner. The paragraphs mentioned seem to apply to a separate parcel of land. Irrespective of the seeming inadmissibility of evidence thereunder that question is, in the first instance, to be passed upon by the trial court. Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser and Hefíernan, JJ., concur; Bliss, J., concurs in the result, except as to costs, and votes to award costs to the plaintiffs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-v-new-york-state-electric-gas-corp-nyappdiv-1935.