Goldberg v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Goldberg v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

24 N.Y.S. 1143, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 90, 71 Hun 613

DecidedJuly 28, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 24 N.Y.S. 1143 (Goldberg v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldberg v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 24 N.Y.S. 1143, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 90, 71 Hun 613 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s road from Yonkers to Hastings. When he arrived at Hastings he got off the cars on the west side, and, as he proceeded towards the river, he was struck by a train going south. The station at Hastings is east of the track. The general facts surrounding the accident are not materially changed upon this trial from those presented upon the former appeal. The court of appeals decided therein that no negligence was proven, and that the proof of freedom from contributory negligence upon the part of plaintiff was not sufficient. Goldberg v. Railroad Co., 133 N. Y. 561, 30 N. E. Rep. 597. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s road from Yonkers to Hastings. When he arrived at Hastings he got off the cars on the west side, and, as he proceeded towards the river, he was struck by a train going south. The station at Hastings is east of the track. The general facts surrounding the accident are not materially changed upon this trial from those presented upon the former appeal. The court of appeals decided therein that no negligence was proven, and that the proof of freedom from contributory negligence upon the part of plaintiff was not sufficient. Goldberg v. Railroad Co., 133 N. Y. 561, 30 N. E. Rep. 597. The judgment and order denying a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.Y.S. 1143, 54 N.Y. St. Rep. 90, 71 Hun 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nysupct-1893.