Bruszacynaska v. Ruby

New York Court of Appeals

Bruszacynaska v. Ruby

60 N.E.2d 26, 294 N.Y. 22

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 N.E.2d 26 (Bruszacynaska v. Ruby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruszacynaska v. Ruby, 60 N.E.2d 26, 294 N.Y. 22 (N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whether or not control of the premises had passed from the lessor to the lessee was a question of fact which was determined adversely to the defendant by the trial court. It was a fair inference from the evidence that such control had not passed. We do not decide the question whether if there had been technical abandonment of control by the lessor, there would still be liability on her part. (See Restatement of the Law of Torts, § 353; Kilmer v. White, 254 N. Y. 64.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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