Case Name: HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. HAMM
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-08-09
Citations: 24 N.Y.S. 730
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. HAMM.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 24
Pages: 730–730

Head Matter:
(4 Misc. Rep. 602;
mem. report without opinion.)
HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF NEW YORK v. HAMM.
(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
August 9, 1893.)
Building in City—Health Regulations—Penalty for Violation.
Deviation from the plans of a building as approved by the health department of New York city, for which a penalty is provided by Laws 1882, c. 410, § 665, is not excused by the permission of an inspector of the department, which he had no authority to give.
Appeal from third district court.
Action by the health department of the city of Hew York against Howard D. Hamm to recover the penalty of $10 per day provided for by section 665 of the consolidation act, (Laws 1882, c. 410,) 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 Hew York, pursuant to authority conferred by the act, (section 660 et seq.) From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant, appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before .BISCHOFF and GLEGERICH, JJ.
Earley & Prendergast, for appellant.
Eugene Otterbourg, for respondent.

Opinion:
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 Hew York, pursuant to the authority vested in it at the time by the consolidation act, (Laws 1882, c. 410, § 661.) In fact, so far as the cellar arches and supporting columns were concerhed, 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.