Gibaldi v. South Brooklyn Savings Bank

264 A.D. 772, 34 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4666
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 772 (Gibaldi v. South Brooklyn Savings 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
Gibaldi v. South Brooklyn Savings Bank, 264 A.D. 772, 34 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint after plaintiff’s opening to the jury as follows: Plaintiff, a girl of eleven years of age, lived in a house owned by defendant; her parents turned on the lights and swept the halls of the house; in front of the house was a small yard separated from the sidewalk by an iron grill fence; for two years before the accident the fence had fallen over time and again and was always put back in a makeshift way by tying it with either cord or wire; defendant knew of the condition; on the day of the accident, which was a Sunday, plaintiff and her sister were returning from church; the iron fence was lying on the sidewalk; she and two other girls lifted the fence up to get it back • to its former position; while this was being done, one of the girls let go her end of the fence and plaintiff was struck by part of the fence. A jury might have found that the fence fell to the sidewalk and became an obstruction because of defendant’s failure, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have it properly secured, and that in the exercise of ordinary prudence, it should have anticipated that it was likely that, if it did fall, children might attempt to replace it and be hurt in attempting so to do. It, therefore, would be chargeable with negligence. (Tierney v. New York Dugan Bros., Inc., 288 N. Y. 16; Kunz v. City of Troy, 104 id. 344.) The question of contributory negligence would be for the jury. [773]*773Judgment dismissing the complaint reversed on the law and a new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide the event. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Meyers v. 120th Avenue Building Corp.
9 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D. 772, 34 N.Y.S.2d 725, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibaldi-v-south-brooklyn-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1942.