Burke v. Bond & Mortgage Guarantee Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. Bond & Mortgage Guarantee Corp.

255 A.D. 852, 7 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5649

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 4, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 852 (Burke v. Bond & Mortgage Guarantee Corp.) 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

Burke v. Bond & Mortgage Guarantee Corp., 255 A.D. 852, 7 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendants [853]*853or some of them were either the owners or in control and management of an apartment house wherein there was a backyard or areaway in which the children of tenants were invited and directed to play. Painters doing work on this apartment house left a painter’s scaffold in this yard, where it remained for three days or more. While children were playing about this scaffold, one was injured and she and her father brought suit for damages. On the trial the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Questions of fact as to the negligence of the defendants and the contributory negligence of the infant were presented which should have been determined by the jury. On the present state of the record we are unable to determine whether one or more of the defendants should have been exonerated from liability. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

The defendants [853]*853or some of them were either the owners or in control and management of an apartment house wherein there was a backyard or areaway in which the children of tenants were invited and directed to play. Painters doing work on this apartment house left a painter’s scaffold in this yard, where it remained for three days or more. While children were playing about this scaffold, one was injured and she and her father brought suit for damages. On the trial the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. Questions of fact as to the negligence of the defendants and the contributory negligence of the infant were presented which should have been determined by the jury. On the present state of the record we are unable to determine whether one or more of the defendants should have been exonerated from liability. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 852, 7 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-bond-mortgage-guarantee-corp-nyappdiv-1938.