A. L. RUSSELL, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK


4 A.D.2d 943 (1957)

A. L. Russell, Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent New Era Lithograph Company, Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent New Era Letter Co., Inc., Respondent, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent Ada Lewis et al., as Executors and Trustees of Harry J. Lewis, Deceased, Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent Bar Press, Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent Wisdom Press, Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent O'Sullivan Linotype Composition Co., Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent Greenleigh Printing Co., Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent American Mica Works Corp., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent Theodore P. Harding et al., Doing Business as Harding & Harding, Respondents, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent General Printed Products Corp., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant-Respondent Olaf Ravndal, as Treasurer of American Express Company, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant New York Testing Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, v. Cayuga Construction Corporation, Appellant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

November 26, 1957


Judgment and order awarding interest on the verdict, in each action, unanimously reversed and complaint in each action dismissed, with costs to the appellants.

We would not agree with defendants' argument that they might with legal impunity heedlessly drain water from the subsoil supporting an adjoining building knowing that as a likely consequence the building would settle. We do agree with their contention, however, that...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases