Franczak v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franczak v. State

259 A.D. 786, 18 N.Y.S.2d 385

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1940

DocketClaim No. 24408

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D. 786 (Franczak v. State) 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

Franczak v. State, 259 A.D. 786, 18 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

‘Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We think the award was not excessive and that it is supported by the weight of the evidence and applicable principles of law. (See Potter v. New York, O. & W. R. Co., 261 N. Y. 489, 493; Charles v. Barrett, 233 id. 127, 129; Bensonhurst National Bank v. City of New York, 252 App. Div. 689, 691; affd., 277 N. Y. 722; Smith v. State of New York, 243 App. Div. 682; affd., 268 N. Y. 551; Schumer v. Caplin, 241 id. 346, 351; McCabe v. Mackay, 233 App. Div. 101; Brown v. Wittner, 43 id. 135, 137; Lee v. Ingraham, 106 id. 167, 169, 170; Kenney v. Rhinelander, 28 id. 246, 249; Silverman v. Ulrika Realty Corp., 239 id. 194, 195, 196; Lichtman v. Rose, 110 N. Y. Supp. 935, 936; Schabel v. Onseyga Realty Co., Inc., 233 App. Div. 208; Bornstein v. Faden, 149 id. 37, 39, 40; affd., 208 N. Y. 605; Totten v. Phipps, 52 id. 354, 357, 358; Mulac v. Greentree Homes, Inc., 256 App. Div. 1107; Friedman v. Neufeld, 246 id. 545; Boyce v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 314, 319; Lanigan v. New York Gas-Light Co., 71 id. 29, 34; McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 id. 340, 347; Hudson v. Church of Holy Trinity, 250 id. 513; Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 id. 413, 418; Zurich G. A. & L. Ins. Co. v. Childs Co., 253 id. 324, 328; Steinbrenner v. Forney Co., 143 App. Div. 73; Weston v. City of Troy, 139 N. Y. 281, 283; Hofmann Packing Co., Inc., v. State of New York, 256 App. Div. 884.) We have not overlooked the following decisions which we think are distinguishable on the facts. (See O’ Neill v. Chatham Phenix Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 242 App. Div. 511; affd., 267 N. Y. 622; Decker v. Brooklyn Strand Theater Corp., 222 App. Div. 752; Donnelly v. Katz, 133 id. 905; affd., 201 N. Y. 575; Schindler v. Welz and Zerweck, 145 App. Div. 532. See for distinguishing features Salomon v. Timpson Place Construction Corp., 166 Misc. 506.) All concur. (The judgment awards claimant damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of falling downstairs at an evening school because of the negligent lighting of the building.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

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

‘Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We think the award was not excessive and that it is supported by the weight of the evidence and applicable principles of law. (See Potter v. New York, O. & W. R. Co., 261 N. Y. 489, 493; Charles v. Barrett, 233 id. 127, 129; Bensonhurst National Bank v. City of New York, 252 App. Div. 689, 691; affd., 277 N. Y. 722; Smith v. State of New York, 243 App. Div. 682; affd., 268 N. Y. 551; Schumer v. Caplin, 241 id. 346, 351; McCabe v. Mackay, 233 App. Div. 101; Brown v. Wittner, 43 id. 135, 137; Lee v. Ingraham, 106 id. 167, 169, 170; Kenney v. Rhinelander, 28 id. 246, 249; Silverman v. Ulrika Realty Corp., 239 id. 194, 195, 196; Lichtman v. Rose, 110 N. Y. Supp. 935, 936; Schabel v. Onseyga Realty Co., Inc., 233 App. Div. 208; Bornstein v. Faden, 149 id. 37, 39, 40; affd., 208 N. Y. 605; Totten v. Phipps, 52 id. 354, 357, 358; Mulac v. Greentree Homes, Inc., 256 App. Div. 1107; Friedman v. Neufeld, 246 id. 545; Boyce v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 314, 319; Lanigan v. New York Gas-Light Co., 71 id. 29, 34; McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 id. 340, 347; Hudson v. Church of Holy Trinity, 250 id. 513; Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 id. 413, 418; Zurich G. A. & L. Ins. Co. v. Childs Co., 253 id. 324, 328; Steinbrenner v. Forney Co., 143 App. Div. 73; Weston v. City of Troy, 139 N. Y. 281, 283; Hofmann Packing Co., Inc., v. State of New York, 256 App. Div. 884.) We have not overlooked the following decisions which we think are distinguishable on the facts. (See O’ Neill v. Chatham Phenix Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 242 App. Div. 511; affd., 267 N. Y. 622; Decker v. Brooklyn Strand Theater Corp., 222 App. Div. 752; Donnelly v. Katz, 133 id. 905; affd., 201 N. Y. 575; Schindler v. Welz and Zerweck, 145 App. Div. 532. See for distinguishing features Salomon v. Timpson Place Construction Corp., 166 Misc. 506.) All concur. (The judgment awards claimant damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of falling downstairs at an evening school because of the negligent lighting of the building.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 786, 18 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franczak-v-state-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack