Majority
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in Madison county clerk’s office on September 5, 1941, in favor of defendant for $425.57 costs, and from an order entered in the same clerk’s office on September 27, 1941, denying a motion to vacate the judgment, but amending it by reducing it to $356. Appellant is the owner of a small farm adjacent to a stone quarry operated by respondent, and obtained a judgment enjoining respondent from so operating its quarry that stones were thrown on appellant’s land.
Appellant applied to a justice of the Supreme Court resident of the Sixth Judicial District for an order to show cause why the respondent should not be punished for contempt of court for violating the terms of the injunction. The application was granted and made returnable at a term of court held in the Fifth District at Utica, whereat, upon the application of appellant’s attorney and over the opposition of respondent’s attorney, the matter was
The original action was tried in April, 1940, before the court and a jury, which returned a verdict of $850 in favor of the appellant, and a judgment was entered thereon, and respondent was enjoined “ from conducting its blasting operations in such a manner as to project stones, fragments of rock and debris upon the property of the plaintiff.” Within a brief period respondent was cited for contempt, charged with having violated the terms of the earlier judgment. On this hearing it appeared that respondent’s method of blasting had been changed, and it was determined that while respondent had violated the earlier judgment, “ said violation not being wilful ” it was directed to pay nominal damages of ten dollars to plaintiff, together with ten dollars costs of the motion and sixteen dollars disbursements and witness fees. This was followed by the proceeding under review.
Appellant questions the judgment because it was entered in the first instance without application to the court, and cites Aron v. Aron ( 280 N. Y. 328 ). This irregularity, if in fact it was irregular,
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Crapser, Heffernan, Schencic and Foster, JJ., concur.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Cases cited
- Aron v. Aron 280 N. Y. 328 p. 166