Giancola v. Damar Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giancola v. Damar Realty Corp.

23 A.D.2d 548, 256 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4907

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 548 (Giancola v. Damar Realty 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

Giancola v. Damar Realty Corp., 23 A.D.2d 548, 256 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously affirming a judgment of the Civil Court entered in plaintiff’s favor, unanimously reversed on the law and-on the facts, with $50 costs to appellant, and the complaint dismissed. The trial court, in finding for the plaintiff, must of necessity have found that the manner of construction of the door or of its maintenance created a condition of foreseeable danger. After having examined the pertinent exhibit we can come to no other conclusion but that even absent any markings no fault can he found with either the manner of construction or the manner in which the door was maintained. Accordingly, we find no negligence on the part of the defendant and it may not he cast in liability for plaintiff’s injuries. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Witmer, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term unanimously affirming a judgment of the Civil Court entered in plaintiff’s favor, unanimously reversed on the law and-on the facts, with $50 costs to appellant, and the complaint dismissed. The trial court, in finding for the plaintiff, must of necessity have found that the manner of construction of the door or of its maintenance created a condition of foreseeable danger. After having examined the pertinent exhibit we can come to no other conclusion but that even absent any markings no fault can he found with either the manner of construction or the manner in which the door was maintained. Accordingly, we find no negligence on the part of the defendant and it may not he cast in liability for plaintiff’s injuries. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 548, 256 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giancola-v-damar-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1965.