Village of Great Neck Estates v. Rose

279 A.D. 671, 108 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3424
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 1951·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

[672] In our opinion respondent “ permitted ” the premises in question to be used as a parking space, since he suffered such use, or tacitly consented thereto, by failing to adopt measures effective to prevent it, although such measures were within his power and duty. (Cf. People v. Knapp, 206 N. Y. 373, 384; People ex rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms Co., 180 App. Div. 615, affd. 225 N. Y. 25, and People v. Harrison, 183 App. Div. 812.) The fact that the judgment did not specifically require respondent to erect a fence or barrier did not constitute a holding that he might fail to adopt such an obvious measure with impunity in the event that other measures should prove ineffective. Respondent was required to take such reasonable measures as would render the decree effective. (See Mayor of City of New York v. New York & Staten Is. Ferry Co., 64 N. Y. 622, 624.) Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to affirm. [See post, p. 792.]

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

Village of Great Neck Estates v. Rose, 279 A.D. 671, 108 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

279 A.D. 671 (Village of Great Neck Estates v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Warner
905 A.2d 233 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)
Morgan v. Foretich
564 A.2d 1 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
D.D. v. M.T.
550 A.2d 37 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1988)
Ellenberg v. Brach
88 A.D.2d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Ingraham v. Maurer
74 Misc. 2d 893 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)