From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Commercial Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1911
145 App. Div. 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Opinion

June 29, 1911.

Charles S. Taber, for the appellant.

Eugene N.L. Young, for the respondent.

Present — JENKS, P.J., HIRSCHBERG, BURR, WOODWARD and RICH, JJ.


The plaintiff is the owner in fee of two acres of land on Second street, in Brentwood, Suffolk county. The land is bounded by the center of the highway and is occupied by the plaintiff as a residence. It is heavily wooded and at the time of the acts complained of there was a heavy growth of white and natural pine upon the street and within the line of the plaintiff's ownership. In the month of July, 1907, while the plaintiff was absent from his home, the defendant was engaged in moving a school building upon the street to land owned by it opposite the plaintiff's property, and in moving the building cut down a large number of trees on the plaintiff's side of the street and on the plaintiff's property. In the action brought under sections 1667 and 1668 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiff has recovered a verdict for $500 damages, which amount was trebled by the court.

On the question of the location and boundaries of the plaintiff's property, the nature and extent of the spoliation and the extent of the damages incurred, there was conflicting evidence and many alleged errors in ruling by the trial court are presented in the appellant's brief. All the questions and points raised have been carefully examined and no ground appears for a reversal. In the circumstances, the right of action is undoubted and has often been upheld. A somewhat similar case was early presented in McCruden v. Rochester R. Co. ( 5 Misc. Rep. 59), and the opinion of Mr. Justice RUMSEY, rendered therein on a motion for a new trial, was adopted by the General Term (77 Hun, 609) and by the Court of Appeals ( 151 N.Y. 623). (See, also, Van Siclen v. Jamaica Electric Light Co., 45 App. Div. 1; affd. by the Court of Appeals, 168 N.Y. 650, on the opinion of Mr. Justice HATCH in this court, and Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 181 N.Y. 313.)

The judgment and order should be affirmed.


Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Smith v. Commercial Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1911
145 App. Div. 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
Case details for

Smith v. Commercial Construction Co.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES D. SMITH, JR., Respondent, v . COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 1911

Citations

145 App. Div. 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
130 N.Y.S. 403