Feinstein v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Feinstein v. New York City Transit Authority

17 Misc. 2d 45, 190 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2213

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 8, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 45 (Feinstein v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feinstein v. New York City Transit Authority, 17 Misc. 2d 45, 190 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order should be unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs. Evidence that defendant’s employee sanded the subway platform after the alleged occurrence was inadmissible to show negligence and was improperly received. (Getty v. Town of Hamlin, 127 N. Y. 636; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 173.) It was error to charge that defendant, as a common carrier, owed a greater duty toward passengers than did the City of New York toward pedestrians on a public sidewalk. The duty as to platform is that of ordinary care (Belts v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 222 N. Y. 433; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 111 N. Y. 488; McLean v. Triboro Coach Corp., 302 N. Y. 49). It was also error, in the absence of medical testimony, to instruct the jury that they might consider pain and suffering that plaintiff wife was “ likely to endure ”. Additionally, the testimony of plaintiff husband that on the day preceding the accident he saw the “ jelly spot ” on which his wife claims to have slipped was too pat to be worthy of belief. (Cf. Bottalico v. City of New York, 281 App. Div. 339.) Under all the circumstances, the verdict was properly set aside.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The order should be unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs. Evidence that defendant’s employee sanded the subway platform after the alleged occurrence was inadmissible to show negligence and was improperly received. (Getty v. Town of Hamlin, 127 N. Y. 636; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 173.) It was error to charge that defendant, as a common carrier, owed a greater duty toward passengers than did the City of New York toward pedestrians on a public sidewalk. The duty as to platform is that of ordinary care (Belts v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 222 N. Y. 433; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 111 N. Y. 488; McLean v. Triboro Coach Corp., 302 N. Y. 49). It was also error, in the absence of medical testimony, to instruct the jury that they might consider pain and suffering that plaintiff wife was “ likely to endure ”. Additionally, the testimony of plaintiff husband that on the day preceding the accident he saw the “ jelly spot ” on which his wife claims to have slipped was too pat to be worthy of belief. (Cf. Bottalico v. City of New York, 281 App. Div. 339.) Under all the circumstances, the verdict was properly set aside.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 45, 190 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinstein-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappterm-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack