Case ID: misc_4/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Bischoff, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Health Department of the City of New York v. Hamm.
    Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff recovered in a District Court in the city of New York.
    Action to recover the penalty of ten dollars per day provided for by section 665 of the Consolidation Act (Chap. 410, Laws of 1882), and incurred by defendant for having erected a building in violation of the plans and specifications as approved by the health department in the city of New York, pursuant to authority conferred by title 7, sections 660, etc., of the act referred to. See, also, chap. 275, Laws of 1892, giving to the department of buildings power to prosecute for such violations.
    
      Eugene Otterbourg, for plaintiff (respondent).
    
      Earley ds Erendergast, for defendant (appellant).
   Bischoff, J.

The evidence is, in our opinion, conclusive that defendant’s buildings were not constructed in respect to light, air, ventilation and drainage, agreeably to the plans and specifications approved by the health department in the city of New York, pursuant to the authority vested in it at the time by the Consolidation Act (Laws of 1882, chap. 410, § 661). In fact so far as the cellar arches and supporting columns were concerned, this was conceded by defendant, whose only excuse for having deviated from the approved plan was that it was permitted by an inspector of the health department, but whose authority to grant such permission, thus nullifying the resolution of the board, was not even attempted to be sustained by defendant. It was also admitted by defendant that the skylight over the main stairs which the plan required, was not provided for.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Gtegerich, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.