Ginsberg v. Levbourne Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ginsberg v. Levbourne Realty Co.

25 A.D.2d 440, 267 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5158

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 440 (Ginsberg v. Levbourne Realty Co.) 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

Ginsberg v. Levbourne Realty Co., 25 A.D.2d 440, 267 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by the plaintiff while a guest at the defendant’s hotel, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 15, 1963 after a jury trial, which dismissed the complaint at the end of the entire case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the learned Trial Justice erred in dismissing the complaint at the close of the entire case. Considering the evidence adduced at the trial in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff and according him the ¡benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from such evidence, we find that issues of fact were presented for the determination of the jury as to whether or not plaintiff established actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and whether or not plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill and Benjamin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by the plaintiff while a guest at the defendant’s hotel, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 15, 1963 after a jury trial, which dismissed the complaint at the end of the entire case. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the learned Trial Justice erred in dismissing the complaint at the close of the entire case. Considering the evidence adduced at the trial in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff and according him the ¡benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from such evidence, we find that issues of fact were presented for the determination of the jury as to whether or not plaintiff established actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and whether or not plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Hill and Benjamin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 440, 267 N.Y.S.2d 485, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsberg-v-levbourne-realty-co-nyappdiv-1966.