Fey v. New York Dock Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fey v. New York Dock Co.

157 A.D. 923, 142 N.Y.S. 626

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

DecidedJune 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D. 923 (Fey v. New York Dock Co.) 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

Fey v. New York Dock Co., 157 A.D. 923, 142 N.Y.S. 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this action, which was tried subsequently to the case of Fogarty v. New York Dock Co. (post, p. 924), decided herewith, evidence [924]*924was given as to the cause of the fall of the gate. The absence of such evidence in the Fogarty case constrained us to hold that a nonsuit was properly granted. Upon the evidence here presented, we think that it was a question of fact for the jury whether defendant was negligent in leaving the gate in the position in which it was just before it fell. Although there is a conflict of evidence as to its exact position and as to the length of time in which it had there remained prior to the date of the accident, these disputed questions of fact were properly submitted to the jury, and their verdict thereon should not be disturbed. The judgment and order denying motion for new trial should be affirmed, with costs. Present— Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

In this action, which was tried subsequently to the case of Fogarty v. New York Dock Co. (post, p. 924), decided herewith, evidence [924]*924was given as to the cause of the fall of the gate. The absence of such evidence in the Fogarty case constrained us to hold that a nonsuit was properly granted. Upon the evidence here presented, we think that it was a question of fact for the jury whether defendant was negligent in leaving the gate in the position in which it was just before it fell. Although there is a conflict of evidence as to its exact position and as to the length of time in which it had there remained prior to the date of the accident, these disputed questions of fact were properly submitted to the jury, and their verdict thereon should not be disturbed. The judgment and order denying motion for new trial should be affirmed, with costs. Present— Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D. 923, 142 N.Y.S. 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fey-v-new-york-dock-co-nyappdiv-1913.