Greenfield v. Doepfner

49 Misc. 651, 97 N.Y.S. 1043
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 Misc. 651 (Greenfield v. Doepfner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Greenfield v. Doepfner, 49 Misc. 651, 97 N.Y.S. 1043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

Scott, J.

The evidence that the hall and stairways were insufficiently lighted and that this was the immediate cause of the accident is quite satisfactory. We may not say, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because she only steadied herself against the bannister, without actually grasping it (Brown v. Wittner, 43 App. Div. 135), nor should we, in my opinion, so find as matter of fact, in face of the opposite view taken by the trial justice. The damages were very moderate.

I favor affirmance, with costs.

Giegkebich and Gbeehbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Hill v. Raymond
81 F.2d 278 (D.C. Circuit, 1935)
Lichtman v. Rose
110 N.Y.S. 935 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Misc. 651, 97 N.Y.S. 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfield-v-doepfner-nyappterm-1906.