Arnold v. Jacklin Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnold v. Jacklin Holding Corp.

10 A.D.2d 833, 199 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10554

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

DecidedApril 19, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 833 (Arnold v. Jacklin Holding 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

Arnold v. Jacklin Holding Corp., 10 A.D.2d 833, 199 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants. Plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence by proof of the defective condition of the window and of notice of that condition. Whether the negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and was reasonably foreseeable were questions of fact for the jury in view of the evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the proclivities of children residing in the premises to play near the window and the ineffective repair of the window latch. Under the circumstances, it was error to dismiss the complaint, as a matter of law, at the conclusion of the testimony without permitting the jury to pass on the factual issues. Concur- — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Prank and Valente, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants. Plaintiffs established a prima facie case of negligence by proof of the defective condition of the window and of notice of that condition. Whether the negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and was reasonably foreseeable were questions of fact for the jury in view of the evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the proclivities of children residing in the premises to play near the window and the ineffective repair of the window latch. Under the circumstances, it was error to dismiss the complaint, as a matter of law, at the conclusion of the testimony without permitting the jury to pass on the factual issues. Concur- — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Prank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 833, 199 N.Y.S.2d 127, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-jacklin-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1960.