Brodsky v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodsky v. City of New York

9 Misc. 2d 187, 170 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2225

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 7, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Misc. 2d 187 (Brodsky v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brodsky v. City of New York, 9 Misc. 2d 187, 170 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Even though the floor of the passageway was being washed or had just been washed when the plaintiff fell, in view of the fact that this passageway was the only means by which the plaintiff could reach the Brooklyn Bridge station, the plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to call on the defendant to show whether the time and manner of the washing were, in the circumstances, appropriate and reasonable. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. We do not regard Curtiss v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (233 N. Y. 554) as laying down a rule of nonliability of universal application to railroads, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. (Wakeman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 272 N. Y. 625.)

The judgment should lie reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hoestadteb and Tilzeb, JJ., concur; Aurelio, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Even though the floor of the passageway was being washed or had just been washed when the plaintiff fell, in view of the fact that this passageway was the only means by which the plaintiff could reach the Brooklyn Bridge station, the plaintiff’s proof was sufficient to call on the defendant to show whether the time and manner of the washing were, in the circumstances, appropriate and reasonable. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case. We do not regard Curtiss v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (233 N. Y. 554) as laying down a rule of nonliability of universal application to railroads, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. (Wakeman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 272 N. Y. 625.)

The judgment should lie reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hoestadteb and Tilzeb, JJ., concur; Aurelio, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Misc. 2d 187, 170 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack