Blake v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. City of New York

279 A.D. 751, 108 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 751 (Blake v. City of New York) 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

Blake v. City of New York, 279 A.D. 751, 108 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

The proof was insufficient to enable the plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. There was no showing that the pipe which caused the injury was within the exclusive control and possession of the defendant. On the contrary it appears as a fair inference of plaintiff’s testimony, and in fact apparently is conceded, that the pipe was not part of the trolley [752]*752car equipment. (Paolantonio v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 274 App. Div. 1063, affd. 300 N. Y. 640; Manley v. New York Tel. Co., 303 N. Y. 18, 25.) The plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence by direct proof. (Alexander v. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 13; De Martino v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp., 258 App. Div. 1072, affd. 285 N. Y. 593.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

The proof was insufficient to enable the plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. There was no showing that the pipe which caused the injury was within the exclusive control and possession of the defendant. On the contrary it appears as a fair inference of plaintiff’s testimony, and in fact apparently is conceded, that the pipe was not part of the trolley [752]*752car equipment. (Paolantonio v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 274 App. Div. 1063, affd. 300 N. Y. 640; Manley v. New York Tel. Co., 303 N. Y. 18, 25.) The plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence by direct proof. (Alexander v. Rochester City & Brighton R. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 13; De Martino v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp., 258 App. Div. 1072, affd. 285 N. Y. 593.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 751, 108 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack