Burack v. Washington Cemetery

258 A.D. 1071, 18 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 258 A.D. 1071 (Burack v. Washington Cemetery) 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
Burack v. Washington Cemetery, 258 A.D. 1071, 18 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff, in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained when a monument in the Washington Cemetery fell upon him, from a judgment dismissing his complaint as to both defendants, at the close of his case at a jury trial. As to the defendant Independent Order Brith Abraham, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs. As to the defendant Washington Cemeteiy the judgment is reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. As to the defendant Independent Order of Brith Abraham, no cause of action was proved. That defendant had received by grant from the cemetery corporation the exclusive use for burial purposes of the section of the cemetery in which the accident occurred. Such grant, however, did not relinquish the cemetery corporation’s ownership and sole control of that section of the cemetery nor did it relieve it from responsibility for the safe condition thereof. (Dutton v. Greenwood Cemetery Co., 80 App. Div. 352; Clarke v. Keating, 183 id. 212,214, and cases there cited.) As to the defendant Washington Cemetery, plaintiff’s evidence warranted findings that, while he was an invitee upon, or a business visitor to, the property of the cemetery corporation, he received injuries, without fault on his part, through being struck by a large gravestone which toppled from its base upon the plaintiff, and that the cemetery corporation failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care and prudence to keep its premises safe for his use as such visitor. (Heskell v. Auburn L., H. & P. Co., [1072]*1072209 N. Y. 86,91; Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co., 255id. 442, 448; Restatement, Torts, § 332.) Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lawlor v. Cloverleaf Memorial Park, Inc.
266 A.2d 569 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1970)
Gruber v. Eromaz Realty Corp.
265 A.D. 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 A.D. 1071, 18 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burack-v-washington-cemetery-nyappdiv-1940.