Brito v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brito v. City of New York

254 A.D. 896, 5 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8224

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

DecidedJune 24, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 896 (Brito 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

Brito v. City of New York, 254 A.D. 896, 5 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment for defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff by coming in contact with a submerged post while bathing, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. It was error for the court to permit the employee of the defendant to testify to the conelusory fact that [897]*897the beach was not open to the public for bathing. It was also error to submit the case to the jury upon the theory that because life ropes were not up and life guards employed and catamarans in use, the plaintiff assumed the risk of a hidden danger. It was also error, under the facts in this case, for the court to refuse the plaintiff’s request to charge at folio 295 of the record. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment for defendant, entered upon the verdict of a jury in an action to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff by coming in contact with a submerged post while bathing, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. It was error for the court to permit the employee of the defendant to testify to the conelusory fact that [897]*897the beach was not open to the public for bathing. It was also error to submit the case to the jury upon the theory that because life ropes were not up and life guards employed and catamarans in use, the plaintiff assumed the risk of a hidden danger. It was also error, under the facts in this case, for the court to refuse the plaintiff’s request to charge at folio 295 of the record. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 896, 5 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brito-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack