Hammer v. New York & Queens Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hammer v. New York & Queens Transit Corp.

246 A.D. 628

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 628 (Hammer v. New York & Queens Transit 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

Hammer v. New York & Queens Transit Corp., 246 A.D. 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The action is brought to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when plaintiff fell on or near the tracks of the defendant’s street railroad, due, it was claimed, to the negligence of the defendant in failing to maintain its tracks and the pavement adjacent thereto as the law required in a safe and suitable condition at a place where pedestrians might lawfully travel. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case, although the defendant had made no motion. As the record stood the plaintiff had made a prima facie case; and the dismissal was error. Judgment for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

The action is brought to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when plaintiff fell on or near the tracks of the defendant’s street railroad, due, it was claimed, to the negligence of the defendant in failing to maintain its tracks and the pavement adjacent thereto as the law required in a safe and suitable condition at a place where pedestrians might lawfully travel. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case, although the defendant had made no motion. As the record stood the plaintiff had made a prima facie case; and the dismissal was error. Judgment for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-new-york-queens-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1935.