Blaivas v. Amalgamated Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blaivas v. Amalgamated Bank

260 A.D. 872, 22 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5162

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 872 (Blaivas v. Amalgamated Bank) 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

Blaivas v. Amalgamated Bank, 260 A.D. 872, 22 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

The infant plaintiff was injured when his nose came in contact with the glass top of a counter in the defendant’s banking house. The top is alleged to have had a broken jagged edge. On the verdict of a jury the infant recovered a judgment for the injuries suffered and the father in the companion action recovered for medical expenses and loss of services. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. There was no notice, either actual or constructive, of a dangerous condition, described in the complaint as a glass counter with “ a jagged edge.” Defendant’s motion for the direction of a verdict should have been granted. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

The infant plaintiff was injured when his nose came in contact with the glass top of a counter in the defendant’s banking house. The top is alleged to have had a broken jagged edge. On the verdict of a jury the infant recovered a judgment for the injuries suffered and the father in the companion action recovered for medical expenses and loss of services. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. There was no notice, either actual or constructive, of a dangerous condition, described in the complaint as a glass counter with “ a jagged edge.” Defendant’s motion for the direction of a verdict should have been granted. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 872, 22 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaivas-v-amalgamated-bank-nyappdiv-1940.