Russell v. Nostrand Athletic Club, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
There is evidence to sustain the new findings made by the Appellate Division that the boxing matches conducted by the defendant at night constituted a nuisance in this residential section of the city, where the homes had been built and occupied long before the arena was constructed. With the weight of the evidence, we have nothing to do. The judgment, however, is too broad. The only complaint is against the boxing matches, which attract the noisy boisterous crowd; the evidence only relates to these. The judgment, however, restrains the defendant from holding “ any gymnastic or athletic…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dillon v. Cortland Baking Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Peters v. MosesNew York Supreme Court · 1939
- Antinelli v. TonerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Frank v. Cossitt Cement Products, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1950
- 169 East 69th Street Corp. v. LelandCivil Court of the City of New York · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.