Fresk v. Stinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fresk v. Stinson

7 A.D.2d 1027, 184 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9387

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 1027 (Fresk v. Stinson) 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

Fresk v. Stinson, 7 A.D.2d 1027, 184 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by her mother for medical expenses, the appeal is from an order of the Appellate Term, by permission of that court, affirming a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, Queens County, entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents. The infant respondent, while in a stall or booth in a driving range operated by appellant, was injured when she was struck on the side of her head by a golf club swung by a young boy in the next stall. Order of the Appellate Term reversed on the law and the facts, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Term, judgment of the City Court vacated, and complaint dismissed. There was no evidence of any improper construction or maintenance of the range, and in this case no question of fact as to whether or not there was proper supervision was presented by the evidence adduced at the trial. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by her mother for medical expenses, the appeal is from an order of the Appellate Term, by permission of that court, affirming a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, Queens County, entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents. The infant respondent, while in a stall or booth in a driving range operated by appellant, was injured when she was struck on the side of her head by a golf club swung by a young boy in the next stall. Order of the Appellate Term reversed on the law and the facts, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Term, judgment of the City Court vacated, and complaint dismissed. There was no evidence of any improper construction or maintenance of the range, and in this case no question of fact as to whether or not there was proper supervision was presented by the evidence adduced at the trial. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 1027, 184 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fresk-v-stinson-nyappdiv-1959.