Conaway v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conaway v. Martin

121 A.D. 551, 106 N.Y.S. 194, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1834

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D. 551 (Conaway v. Martin) 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

Conaway v. Martin, 121 A.D. 551, 106 N.Y.S. 194, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

■ The motion to dismiss at the close was properly denied. Especially owing to the lack of light, it was a, question of. fact whether it was not negligent not to have a door or gate in the elevator car itself, or else oh the inside of the opening or arcli through the wall which was the entrance to the elevator car, to prevent persons in the car from inadvertently getting so cl osé. to the entrance side of the car as to.strike against the top of the said opening or arch if they happened to lean over a little as the car was going up..

The judgment should be affirmed^

Present—Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed,- with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

■ The motion to dismiss at the close was properly denied. Especially owing to the lack of light, it was a, question of. fact whether it was not negligent not to have a door or gate in the elevator car itself, or else oh the inside of the opening or arcli through the wall which was the entrance to the elevator car, to prevent persons in the car from inadvertently getting so cl osé. to the entrance side of the car as to.strike against the top of the said opening or arch if they happened to lean over a little as the car was going up..

The judgment should be affirmed^

Present—Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed,- with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D. 551, 106 N.Y.S. 194, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conaway-v-martin-nyappdiv-1907.