Alper v. Madison Square Garden Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alper v. Madison Square Garden Corp.

239 A.D. 550, 268 N.Y.S. 152, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8093

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 550 (Alper v. Madison Square Garden Corp.) 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

Alper v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 239 A.D. 550, 268 N.Y.S. 152, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

There is no proof in the record that the defendant Madison Square Garden Corporation was in control of the premises at the time of the accident. The building had been leased and was under the control of the defendant Ringling Bros. & Barnum [551]*551& Bailey. There was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the latter defendant in the maintenance or operation of the lobby where the infant plaintiff was injured. There was no overcrowding, no unusual movement of the 250 people who had assembled near the door and no circumstance calling for any interference by the defendant with the conduct of these people. There was abundant room in the lobby for the plaintiffs to wait in a place where they would not be affected by the usual action of the other ticket holders when the door was opened. The accident seems to have been caused entirely by the infant’s guardian’s persistence in being first in the place regardless of what might be the effect on the infant of the normal movement of the crowd.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Townley, Glennon. and Untermyer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Pee Curiam.

There is no proof in the record that the defendant Madison Square Garden Corporation was in control of the premises at the time of the accident. The building had been leased and was under the control of the defendant Ringling Bros. & Barnum [551]*551& Bailey. There was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the latter defendant in the maintenance or operation of the lobby where the infant plaintiff was injured. There was no overcrowding, no unusual movement of the 250 people who had assembled near the door and no circumstance calling for any interference by the defendant with the conduct of these people. There was abundant room in the lobby for the plaintiffs to wait in a place where they would not be affected by the usual action of the other ticket holders when the door was opened. The accident seems to have been caused entirely by the infant’s guardian’s persistence in being first in the place regardless of what might be the effect on the infant of the normal movement of the crowd.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Townley, Glennon. and Untermyer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 550, 268 N.Y.S. 152, 1933 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alper-v-madison-square-garden-corp-nyappdiv-1933.