Ebner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ebner v. City of New York

26 A.D.2d 782, 273 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 782 (Ebner v. City of New York) 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

Ebner v. City of New York, 26 A.D.2d 782, 273 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment based on directed verdict in favor of defendant unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The theory of defendant’s negUgence upon which the case was tried, as revealed by the record and upon the argument, presented no credible question of fact for the jury. The hydrant from which water is alleged to have leaked or sprayed at the point where a hose was attached to it was 25 feet downgrade from the place where the plaintiff fell and where she says there was a spot of ice about 6 feet by 4 feet in area and an inch thick. That evidence is insufficient to charge the city with causing such condition, or with the duty, in the absence of further evidence of notice, to correct it. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment based on directed verdict in favor of defendant unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. The theory of defendant’s negUgence upon which the case was tried, as revealed by the record and upon the argument, presented no credible question of fact for the jury. The hydrant from which water is alleged to have leaked or sprayed at the point where a hose was attached to it was 25 feet downgrade from the place where the plaintiff fell and where she says there was a spot of ice about 6 feet by 4 feet in area and an inch thick. That evidence is insufficient to charge the city with causing such condition, or with the duty, in the absence of further evidence of notice, to correct it. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 782, 273 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ebner-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1966.