TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wuster v. Levitt

Morgan A. Wuster and Doris Wuster v. William J. Levitt and Others, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Levitt & Sons, a Copartnership, and Levitt & Sons, Inc., and Others

Wuster v. Levitt, 262 A.D. 854 (1941)
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
June 2, 1941
Citations
262 A.D. 85428 N.Y.S.2d 1611941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6255

Opinion of the Court

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

Action to recover damages and for injunctions, because of water from overflowing sewers flooding plaintiffs’ premises. On cross-appeal by plaintiffs, order granting motion of appellants-respondents to dismiss the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action and denying the motion as to the third cause of action, modified on the law by denying the motion as to the first and second causes of action also, and, as thus modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs to either party. On appeal by appellants-respondents, order, in so far as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. The first and second causes of action are not sufficient in respect of any flooding of plaintiffs’ premises that occurred after the dedication to and acceptance of the street by the town. (Board of Education, Union Free School Dist. No. 6, Town of North Hempstead v. Town of North Hempstead, 259 App. Div. 733 ; 261 id. 1102.) We hold these two causes of action good only because paragraph 16 of the amended complaint is broad enough to admit evidence that plaintiff’s premises were flooded prior to the acceptance of .the street by the town, at a time when the sewer system was controlled by the appellants-respondents. In the opinion of the court the third cause of action as a pleading is sufficient. (Bareham & McFarland, Inc., v. Kane, 228 App. Div. 396 .) The time of appellants-respondents to answer is extended until ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bareham & McFarland, Inc. v. Kane, 228 A.D. 396 (1930) 32
Bd. of Educ. v. Town of North Hempstead, 259 A.D. 733 (1940) 4

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