From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Masal v. Tarrnowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1908
128 App. Div. 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

October 16, 1908.

I. Henry Harris, for the appellant.

John M. Zurn, for the respondents.


There seems to be no reason for the dismissal in the case of the defendant Tomanek, the owner of the property. In the absence of any evidence on that head, the presumption was that he was doing the work on his property, and erected the fence or shield in front of it, which, if so unsafely fastened as to be likely to fall into the street, was a nuisance ( Vincett v. Cook, 4 Hun, 318). The other defendant was in no way connected with the property or the work upon it.

The judgment should be reversed in respect of the defendant Tomanek, and affirmed as to the other defendant.

WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER and RICH, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, as to the defendant Tomanek. Judgment affirmed as to the defendant Tarrnowski, with costs. Order appealed from affirmed.


Summaries of

Masal v. Tarrnowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1908
128 App. Div. 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Masal v. Tarrnowski

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MASAL, Appellant, v . IGNACE TARRNOWSKI and JOSEPH TOMANEK…

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

Date published: Oct 16, 1908

Citations

128 App. Div. 159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
112 N.Y.S. 556