D'Angelo v. Lubay Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Angelo v. Lubay Realty Corp.

272 A.D.2d 821

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

DecidedMay 12, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 821 (D'Angelo v. Lubay Realty 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

D'Angelo v. Lubay Realty Corp., 272 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries due to plaintiff’s fall on a defective pavement in the back yard of defendant’s three-family house. Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. This is not a case of a mere difference in level between two adjoining segments of pavement. It falls within the category of the so-called “ space ” or " hole ” cases. (Leach v. Town of Eastchester, 265 App. Div. 895, affd. 290 N. Y. 619; Wilson v. Jaybro Realty & Development Go., 289 N. Y. 410; 266 App. Div. 668; Mayes V. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 535.) The plaintiff, a tenant, was an invitee and not a mere licensee. (Oliver v. Tenerello, 271 App. Div. 983; Berras V. Keane, 231 N. Y. 566; Petersen v. Cratoford, 263 App. Div. 617; Karlson V. Mealy, 38 App. Div. 486.) The case of Walker v. Bachman (268 N. Y. 294) is clearly distinguishable. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries due to plaintiff’s fall on a defective pavement in the back yard of defendant’s three-family house. Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. This is not a case of a mere difference in level between two adjoining segments of pavement. It falls within the category of the so-called “ space ” or " hole ” cases. (Leach v. Town of Eastchester, 265 App. Div. 895, affd. 290 N. Y. 619; Wilson v. Jaybro Realty & Development Go., 289 N. Y. 410; 266 App. Div. 668; Mayes V. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 535.) The plaintiff, a tenant, was an invitee and not a mere licensee. (Oliver v. Tenerello, 271 App. Div. 983; Berras V. Keane, 231 N. Y. 566; Petersen v. Cratoford, 263 App. Div. 617; Karlson V. Mealy, 38 App. Div. 486.) The case of Walker v. Bachman (268 N. Y. 294) is clearly distinguishable. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-lubay-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack