Behan v. Ivanhoe Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Behan v. Ivanhoe Co.

263 A.D. 963, 33 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7619

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 963 (Behan v. Ivanhoe 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

Behan v. Ivanhoe Co., 263 A.D. 963, 33 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff wife as a consequence of her fall from a window of an apartment in defendant’s multiple dwelling house. She alleged that her fall was due to defendant’s negligence because a sash of a window was so stuck that it fell abruptly following her exertion of force while trying to open it in the course of her work in cleaning the window glass. Companion action by plaintiff husband for loss of services and for expenses. Judgment for plaintiffs unanimously affirmed, with costs. At the close of the entire case the defendant failed to move to dismiss on the ground that it had not been established that the defendant was negligent. It thereby conceded that there was a jury question in respect of its negligence and may not now be heard to assert the contrary. (Luechinger v. Eichhammer, 236 N. Y. 556, 557.) On this issue the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of the proof adduced by the defendant. (Tumulty v. New York, New Haven & H. R. R. Co., 224 App. Div. 131, 136.) The only question which survives for review on this record relates to the issue of contributory negligence. The proof presented a jury question on that phase. (Weiss v. Wallach, 256 App. Div. 354.) Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Action to recover damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff wife as a consequence of her fall from a window of an apartment in defendant’s multiple dwelling house. She alleged that her fall was due to defendant’s negligence because a sash of a window was so stuck that it fell abruptly following her exertion of force while trying to open it in the course of her work in cleaning the window glass. Companion action by plaintiff husband for loss of services and for expenses. Judgment for plaintiffs unanimously affirmed, with costs. At the close of the entire case the defendant failed to move to dismiss on the ground that it had not been established that the defendant was negligent. It thereby conceded that there was a jury question in respect of its negligence and may not now be heard to assert the contrary. (Luechinger v. Eichhammer, 236 N. Y. 556, 557.) On this issue the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of the proof adduced by the defendant. (Tumulty v. New York, New Haven & H. R. R. Co., 224 App. Div. 131, 136.) The only question which survives for review on this record relates to the issue of contributory negligence. The proof presented a jury question on that phase. (Weiss v. Wallach, 256 App. Div. 354.) Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 963, 33 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behan-v-ivanhoe-co-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack