From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sciaky v. Rodgers Hagerty, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 12, 1938
14 N.E.2d 802 (N.Y. 1938)

Summary

In Sciaky, which appears to have involved a situation similar to that in Weprin, we allowed interest from the time of damage, but solely on the authority of the Weprin case.

Summary of this case from Purcell v. Long Is. Daily Press Pub. Co.

Opinion

Submitted March 8, 1938

Decided April 12, 1938

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Murray L. Halpern, Paul Englander, I. Vernon Werbin and Bennett E. Siegelstein for appellant.

Harry Merwin and John F. Collins for respondent.


We are of opinion that interest on the verdict should be added from the time the damage accrued. (See Weprin Glass Building Corp. v. Rosoff Subway Constr. Co., 269 N.Y. 672.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN, FINCH and RIPPEY, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Sciaky v. Rodgers Hagerty, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 12, 1938
14 N.E.2d 802 (N.Y. 1938)

In Sciaky, which appears to have involved a situation similar to that in Weprin, we allowed interest from the time of damage, but solely on the authority of the Weprin case.

Summary of this case from Purcell v. Long Is. Daily Press Pub. Co.
Case details for

Sciaky v. Rodgers Hagerty, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE B. SCIAKY, Appellant, v. RODGERS HAGERTY, INC., Respondent…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 12, 1938

Citations

14 N.E.2d 802 (N.Y. 1938)
14 N.E.2d 802

Citing Cases

Purcell v. Long Island Daily Press Pub. Co.

" (Italics supplied.) As a consequence of the foregoing, in actions where property has been destroyed or…

Purcell v. Long Is. Daily Press Pub. Co.

Plaintiff contends that the "courts of this state have consistently followed the rule suggested by this court…