From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1937
250 App. Div. 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

February 19, 1937.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.


In an action, based on contract, to recover damages to the respondent's building, alleged to have been caused by the appellant's operations in connection with the construction of a section of the Rapid Transit Subway under a contract between the appellant and the city of New York, judgment, and order dated May 22, 1936, modified so as to allow interest on the reduced verdict of $2,000 from November 15, 1933, the date of the commencement of the action, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Appeal from order of May 4, 1936, dismissed. In our opinion, upon this record the respondent was entitled to interest upon the reduced verdict only from the date of the commencement of this action, as the date prior thereto, when damage accrued, was not made clear. ( Freedman v. Hart Early Co., Inc., N.Y.L.J. Feb. 20, 1935, p. 907.)


Summaries of

Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1937
250 App. Div. 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Aronowsky v. Goldberger-Raabin Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ASNA ARONOWSKY, Respondent, v. GOLDBERGER-RAABIN CO., INC., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 19, 1937

Citations

250 App. Div. 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Citing Cases

Temple Beth Sholom v. E.M. Fitzsimons Assoc

In the case at bar the alleged breach of warranty was the cracking and peeling of a "Marbelite" wall surface…

Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. v. Klaxon Co.

On these facts there is no injustice in computing interest from the date the action was started.…