Gruber v. Eromaz Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gruber v. Eromaz Realty Corp.

265 A.D. 857, 37 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6196

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D. 857 (Gruber v. Eromaz Realty Corp.) 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

Gruber v. Eromaz Realty Corp., 265 A.D. 857, 37 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. According to the evidence, the infant-plaintiff was injured by falling when one of her roller skates caught in a broken part of the pavement in a court yard inside the building line of defendant’s apartment house, in which the plaintiffs were tenants. The infant plaintiff was an invitee, and.it was for the jury to determine whether the defendant had failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care and prudence to keep its premises safe for her use (cf. Burack v. Washington Cemetery, 258 App. Div. 1071), whether the condition which caused the fall was- dangerous, and whether the infant-plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. (Hayton v. McLaughlin, 289 N. Y. 66, 68.) Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. According to the evidence, the infant-plaintiff was injured by falling when one of her roller skates caught in a broken part of the pavement in a court yard inside the building line of defendant’s apartment house, in which the plaintiffs were tenants. The infant plaintiff was an invitee, and.it was for the jury to determine whether the defendant had failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care and prudence to keep its premises safe for her use (cf. Burack v. Washington Cemetery, 258 App. Div. 1071), whether the condition which caused the fall was- dangerous, and whether the infant-plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. (Hayton v. McLaughlin, 289 N. Y. 66, 68.) Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D. 857, 37 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gruber-v-eromaz-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack