Cruz v. Register

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Register

54 A.D.2d 969, 388 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14897

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 969 (Cruz v. Register) 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

Cruz v. Register, 54 A.D.2d 969, 388 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 24, 1976, as is in favor of defendant Premium Trading Corporation and against him, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, at a jury trial. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. In our opinion plaintiff’s case against respondent was based upon multiple layers of speculation as to causation, notice and control. Further, as to the alleged rear exit violation, we note that there was a second (metal door) exit and that, in any event, as the size of the garage was 25 feet by 75 feet, it cannot be said that there was "No point * * * more than 100 feet from an exit” (see Administrative Code of City of New York, § C26-709.8, subd [a]). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 24, 1976, as is in favor of defendant Premium Trading Corporation and against him, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, at a jury trial. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. In our opinion plaintiff’s case against respondent was based upon multiple layers of speculation as to causation, notice and control. Further, as to the alleged rear exit violation, we note that there was a second (metal door) exit and that, in any event, as the size of the garage was 25 feet by 75 feet, it cannot be said that there was "No point * * * more than 100 feet from an exit” (see Administrative Code of City of New York, § C26-709.8, subd [a]). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Titone and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 969, 388 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-register-nyappdiv-1976.