Brotzman v. Lindenfeld
This text of 133 Misc. 832 (Brotzman v. Lindenfeld) 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.
Opinion
The sole claim of negligence herein was that the defendant, an abutting owner, permitted snow and ice to accumulate on a coal hole cover in the highway in front of his premises. The [833]*833snow and ice were normal accumulations. Negligence cannot be predicated on the failure of the abutting owner to remove such accumulation, even though there is a city ordinance requiring the owner to remove it. (City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N. Y. 405; Tremblay v. Harmony Mills, 171 id. 598; Lee v. Ortiz, 249 id. 613; Thomp. Neg. § 1219.)
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.
All concur; present, Lydon, Callahan and Petebs, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
133 Misc. 832, 234 N.Y.S. 79, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brotzman-v-lindenfeld-nyappterm-1929.