Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 260, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5311

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 630 (Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit 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

Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 260, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for personal injuries and for loss of services, the undisputed evidence shows that the accident took place when plaintiff Matilda Brand stepped into a pool of water and fell as she [631]*631was entering a turnstile on the platform of defendant’s subway station. The complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiffs' case. Judgment affirmed., with costs. There was no showing of negligence for which defendant is liable. (Kraus v. Wolf, 253 N. Y. 300; Boyne v. City of Buffalo, 269 id. 657.) Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial upon the ground that there was a question of fact for determination by the jury as to negligence and contributory negligence.

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

In an action to recover for personal injuries and for loss of services, the undisputed evidence shows that the accident took place when plaintiff Matilda Brand stepped into a pool of water and fell as she [631]*631was entering a turnstile on the platform of defendant’s subway station. The complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiffs' case. Judgment affirmed., with costs. There was no showing of negligence for which defendant is liable. (Kraus v. Wolf, 253 N. Y. 300; Boyne v. City of Buffalo, 269 id. 657.) Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial upon the ground that there was a question of fact for determination by the jury as to negligence and contributory negligence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 260, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-interborough-rapid-transit-co-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack