Allen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allen v. City of New York

174 A.D. 912, 160 N.Y.S. 1122

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D. 912 (Allen 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

Allen v. City of New York, 174 A.D. 912, 160 N.Y.S. 1122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff showed that cold weather lessened the resistance of the cast iron snap, "but did not show that the snap in question had been subjected to cold sufficient for that purpose on the day in question or before that. Facera, to the question whether the weather, was cold on the morning of Rovember 23, 1914, answered, “ Some.” Whether it was cold enough to affect the snap injuriously does not appear. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the frequent participation of the court in the trial was disconcerting and prejudicial. But it did not preclude the counsel from showing a temperature that rendered the use of the bit improper. Hence, assuming that the jury could infer that the snap broke and caused the injury, negligent use of it on the day in question was not shown. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff showed that cold weather lessened the resistance of the cast iron snap, "but did not show that the snap in question had been subjected to cold sufficient for that purpose on the day in question or before that. Facera, to the question whether the weather, was cold on the morning of Rovember 23, 1914, answered, “ Some.” Whether it was cold enough to affect the snap injuriously does not appear. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the frequent participation of the court in the trial was disconcerting and prejudicial. But it did not preclude the counsel from showing a temperature that rendered the use of the bit improper. Hence, assuming that the jury could infer that the snap broke and caused the injury, negligent use of it on the day in question was not shown. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D. 912, 160 N.Y.S. 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1916.