Antenen v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antenen v. New York Telephone Co.

244 A.D. 866

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

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D. 866 (Antenen v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Antenen v. New York Telephone Co., 244 A.D. 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from judgment id. faVOf Of plaintiff entered Upon verdict. Plaintiff slipped, fell and Was injured while entering the Vestibule of defendant’s building on a snowy, rainy, slushy day. There was no defect in construction of the floor but plaintiff showed that it was wet, dirty and greasy and that there had been other accidents in this Vestibule Under Similar conditions. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, upon the authority of Richman v. Stanley Mark Strand Corp. (241 App. Div. 633; affd., 266 N. Y. 494). Hill, P. J., Orapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ., concur; McNamee, J,, concurs for affirmance only on the ground that in Ms charge the trial court told the jury there was testimony that the floor in question was greasy and oily and dirty; and there was no objection nor exception to the charge,

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

Appeal by defendant from judgment id. faVOf Of plaintiff entered Upon verdict. Plaintiff slipped, fell and Was injured while entering the Vestibule of defendant’s building on a snowy, rainy, slushy day. There was no defect in construction of the floor but plaintiff showed that it was wet, dirty and greasy and that there had been other accidents in this Vestibule Under Similar conditions. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, upon the authority of Richman v. Stanley Mark Strand Corp. (241 App. Div. 633; affd., 266 N. Y. 494). Hill, P. J., Orapser, Bliss and Heffeman, JJ., concur; McNamee, J,, concurs for affirmance only on the ground that in Ms charge the trial court told the jury there was testimony that the floor in question was greasy and oily and dirty; and there was no objection nor exception to the charge,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antenen-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack