Brown v. F. W. Woolworth Co.

275 A.D.2d 805

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the type of premises here in question, defendant landlord under the circumstances disclosed was as a matter of law under no liability in tort to plaintiff, an invitee at the time of the occurrence of the sublessee in occupation and control of that part of the premises where the accident happened, and defendant’s motion for dismissal should have been granted (Fink v. 37 West 36th St. Co., 277 N. Y. 703, revg. 251 App. Div. 261; Cullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287, 292).

In view of this disposition of the appeal, we need not now pass upon other points urged for reversal based on other errors in the record.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Brown v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 275 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

275 A.D.2d 805 (Brown v. F. W. Woolworth Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fink v. 37 West 36th Street Company
14 N.E.2d 634 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Cullings v. Goetz
176 N.E. 397 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)
Fink v. 37 West 36th Street Co.
251 A.D. 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)