Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank

245 N.E.2d 818, 23 N.Y.2d 895, 298 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1597
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 22, 1969·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, in the following memorandum: An issue of fact was raised on the trial as to whether the building lessee maintained properly placed mats on the lobby floor during rainy weather and kept the uncovered áreas free of excessive moisture. While the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert was hardly capable of inspiring confidence, it cannot be disregarded as a matter of law.

Concur; Judges Burke, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen. Chief Judge Fuxd and Judge Sculepfi dissent and vote to affirm on the memorandum at the Appellate Division,

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

Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 245 N.E.2d 818, 23 N.Y.2d 895, 298 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1597 (N.Y. 1969).

245 N.E.2d 818 (Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rowland v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Charles Spinner v. 1725 York Owners Corp.
56 A.D.2d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Hilsman v. Sarwil Associates, L.P.
13 A.D.3d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)