Gramegna v. Rubsam & Horrmann Brewing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gramegna v. Rubsam & Horrmann Brewing Co.

252 A.D. 777, 299 N.Y.S. 183, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 777 (Gramegna v. Rubsam & Horrmann Brewing 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

Gramegna v. Rubsam & Horrmann Brewing Co., 252 A.D. 777, 299 N.Y.S. 183, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action it appeared that the plaintiff was injured when the cellar doors of premises owned by defendant Bernard Fuschino were suddenly opened without warning as the plaintiff was passing and he stumbled over them and fell. It is a fair inference from the evidence, from which a jury might draw the reasonable conclusion, that the doors were thus opened by an employee of defendant Rubsam & Herrmann Brewing Co., while engaged in delivering beer at this restaurant. Questions of fact were presented as to these defendants, and it was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action it appeared that the plaintiff was injured when the cellar doors of premises owned by defendant Bernard Fuschino were suddenly opened without warning as the plaintiff was passing and he stumbled over them and fell. It is a fair inference from the evidence, from which a jury might draw the reasonable conclusion, that the doors were thus opened by an employee of defendant Rubsam & Herrmann Brewing Co., while engaged in delivering beer at this restaurant. Questions of fact were presented as to these defendants, and it was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 777, 299 N.Y.S. 183, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gramegna-v-rubsam-horrmann-brewing-co-nyappdiv-1937.