Duncan v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duncan v. Board of Education

3 A.D.2d 722, 159 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6438

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 722 (Duncan v. Board of Education) 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

Duncan v. Board of Education, 3 A.D.2d 722, 159 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused when a door-closing device on a door in a school building did not operate normally but instead permitted the door to slam shut on the infant’s finger, and by his father for medical expenses. The appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondents. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The record does not sustain the finding implicit in the verdict that the appellants had knowledge or notice of the alleged dangerous condition as required by the charge of court to which no objection was taken. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused when a door-closing device on a door in a school building did not operate normally but instead permitted the door to slam shut on the infant’s finger, and by his father for medical expenses. The appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondents. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The record does not sustain the finding implicit in the verdict that the appellants had knowledge or notice of the alleged dangerous condition as required by the charge of court to which no objection was taken. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 722, 159 N.Y.S.2d 745, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1957.