Adams v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. City of New York

257 A.D. 986, 13 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8818

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 27, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 986 (Adams v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. City of New York, 257 A.D. 986, 13 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she slipped and fell upon a crosswalk in a public highway, judgment in favor of plaintiff against the defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury, reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. If we take the facts established by the proofs, and the proper inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as matter of law she failed to prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the municipality. (Balzer v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 742; Dupont v. Village of Port Chester, 204 id. 351, 354; Lichtenstein v. The Mayor, 159 id. 500; Egan v. City of New York, 175 App. Div. 358.) The authorities upon which the respondent relies, including Rosenberg v. City of New York (256 App. Div. 927 [2d Dept.]; affd., 280 N. Y. 815), have reference to accidents on sidewalks, as to which the city’s obligation to clean them of snow and ice within a reasonable time is more impressive and stringent. (Egan v. City of New York, supra.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she slipped and fell upon a crosswalk in a public highway, judgment in favor of plaintiff against the defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury, reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. If we take the facts established by the proofs, and the proper inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as matter of law she failed to prove facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the municipality. (Balzer v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 742; Dupont v. Village of Port Chester, 204 id. 351, 354; Lichtenstein v. The Mayor, 159 id. 500; Egan v. City of New York, 175 App. Div. 358.) The authorities upon which the respondent relies, including Rosenberg v. City of New York (256 App. Div. 927 [2d Dept.]; affd., 280 N. Y. 815), have reference to accidents on sidewalks, as to which the city’s obligation to clean them of snow and ice within a reasonable time is more impressive and stringent. (Egan v. City of New York, supra.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 986, 13 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack