Aloia v. Berkowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aloia v. Berkowitz

242 A.D. 778, 274 N.Y.S. 426

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 778 (Aloia v. Berkowitz) 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

Aloia v. Berkowitz, 242 A.D. 778, 274 N.Y.S. 426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing the complaint on the opening by plaintiffs’ counsel reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Plaintiffs’ intestate, upon the facts stated in the opening, which must be taken as true, was clearly an invitee, and the defendants owed him the duty of exercising due care against dangers reasonably to be anticipated by the defendants. We are of the opinion that a jury might well say that fire was such a danger. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment dismissing the complaint on the opening by plaintiffs’ counsel reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Plaintiffs’ intestate, upon the facts stated in the opening, which must be taken as true, was clearly an invitee, and the defendants owed him the duty of exercising due care against dangers reasonably to be anticipated by the defendants. We are of the opinion that a jury might well say that fire was such a danger. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 778, 274 N.Y.S. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aloia-v-berkowitz-nyappdiv-1934.