Forlenza v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forlenza v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

252 A.D. 776, 300 N.Y.S. 606, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6255

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 776 (Forlenza v. New York Rapid Transit 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

Forlenza v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 252 A.D. 776, 300 N.Y.S. 606, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Grace Forlenza (then an infant) when she fell down a stairway leading to one of defendant’s subway stations, owing to an alleged defective tread on one of the steps, and by the father to recover for loss of services, the jury found a verdict for plaintiffs, based on defendant’s negligence and plaintiff Grace Forlenza’s freedom from contributory negligence. Judgment affirmed, with costs. There is sufficient evidence, if believed, to support the verdict. Cars-well, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Adel, JJ., dissent and vote for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Grace Forlenza (then an infant) when she fell down a stairway leading to one of defendant’s subway stations, owing to an alleged defective tread on one of the steps, and by the father to recover for loss of services, the jury found a verdict for plaintiffs, based on defendant’s negligence and plaintiff Grace Forlenza’s freedom from contributory negligence. Judgment affirmed, with costs. There is sufficient evidence, if believed, to support the verdict. Cars-well, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur; Hagarty and Adel, JJ., dissent and vote for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 776, 300 N.Y.S. 606, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forlenza-v-new-york-rapid-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1937.