Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank

30 A.D.2d 532, 291 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074

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

DecidedMay 6, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 532 (Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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

Fortgang v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 30 A.D.2d 532, 291 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, etc., defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the 'Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 2, 1967, in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, without costs. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants had not exercised reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises under the weather conditions prevailing at the time of the accident (cf. Spaulding v. Christakos, 269 App. Div. 909, affd. 295 N. Y. 973; Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N. Y. 107; Antenen v. New York Tel. Co., 271 N. Y. 558; Vaglio v. Our Lady of Mount Carmel R. C. Church, 22 A D 2d 815; Friedfeld v. Chemical Corn Exch. Bank, 22 A D 2d 809; Boccaccino v. Our Lady of Pity R. C. Church, 18 A D 2d 1055; Scott v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 810). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, etc., defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the 'Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 2, 1967, in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, without costs. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants had not exercised reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises under the weather conditions prevailing at the time of the accident (cf. Spaulding v. Christakos, 269 App. Div. 909, affd. 295 N. Y. 973; Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N. Y. 107; Antenen v. New York Tel. Co., 271 N. Y. 558; Vaglio v. Our Lady of Mount Carmel R. C. Church, 22 A D 2d 815; Friedfeld v. Chemical Corn Exch. Bank, 22 A D 2d 809; Boccaccino v. Our Lady of Pity R. C. Church, 18 A D 2d 1055; Scott v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 810). Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 532, 291 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortgang-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack