Legal Opinion

Regal Shoe Co. v. Davies

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1933PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtUntermyer, J.

Although the question is. not free from doubt,

I am of opinion that the relation of the defendants Davies, Morris and McCormick to the excavation here was too remote to render them liable under section 230 of article 12 of chapter 5 of the Code of Ordinances, as persons “ causing such excavation to be made.” It would constitute an unreasonable extension of the ordinance if it were held applicable to an owner who in good faith has parted with possession, even though his lessee has undertaken to construct a building on the land. Decisions such as Dorrity v. Rapp (72 N. Y. 307) and Rosenstock v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dorrity v. . RappNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. Rosenstock v. LaueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  3. Bloomingdale v. DuffyNew York Supreme Court · 1911

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Roth v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API