TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arout v. Azar

Malaki Arout v. Mary Azar and Another

Arout v. Azar, 219 A.D. 260 (1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 14, 1927
Citations
219 A.D. 260219 N.Y.S. 4311927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10894

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was not entitled to treble damages under section 535 of the Real Property Law (as added by Laws of 1920, chap. 930), as directed by the court after the verdict of $500., That section applies where a person is disseized, ejected or put out of real property in a forcible manner. Plaintiff was neither disseized, ejected nor put out of her possession. The *261 defendants were guilty of a trespass. Furthermore, the section, which re-enacted section 1669 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only applies where the force is unusual, tends to bring about a breach of the peace, and the entry is with a strong hand, or a multitude of people, or in a riotous manner, or with personal violence, or with threat and menace to life and limb, or under circumstances which would • naturally inspire fear and lead one to apprehend danger of personal injury if he stood up ip. defense of his possession. (Hallock v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 201 .) None of such conditions was present here. Besides, '.plaintiff was not entitled under the section named to treble damages Jor injuries to her personal property.

The judgment should be modified by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $500, with appropriate costs in the Trial Term, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present — Kelly, P. J., Manning, Young, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $500, with appropriate costs in the Trial Term, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11938: 11952: 11957: 11958: 11959: 11962: 11966: 11973: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States ex rel. Horelick v. Criminal Court of New York366 F. Supp. 1140 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)
  2. Drinkhouse v. Parka Corp.143 N.E.2d 767 (N.Y. 1957)
  3. Poppen v. Wadleigh51 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. 1952)
  4. Jennings v. High Farms Corp.35 Misc. 2d 80 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  5. Billig v. Nelson Properties, Inc.166 Misc. 301 (1938)
  6. Pollack v. Macombs Inwood Corp.52 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1966)

Most recent

  1. United States ex rel. Horelick v. Criminal Court of New York366 F. Supp. 1140 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)
  2. Pollack v. Macombs Inwood Corp.52 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1966)
  3. Jennings v. High Farms Corp.35 Misc. 2d 80 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  4. Launikitis v. Garcia18 Misc. 2d 409 (1959)
  5. Schoenbrun v. M. J. B. Holding Corp.13 Misc. 2d 574 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
  6. Drinkhouse v. Parka Corp.143 N.E.2d 767 (N.Y. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hallock v. N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co., 95 N.E. 644 (N.Y. 1911) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list