Hillge v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hillge v. City of New York

282 A.D. 491, 125 N.Y.S.2d 193

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 491 (Hillge v. City of New York) 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

Hillge v. City of New York, 282 A.D. 491, 125 N.Y.S.2d 193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was no proof of structural defect with respect to the top step of the stairway in question. The sidewalk not being level, of necessity the first step must have had a differential in level in relation to the graded sidewalk. At one end the step was one and one-eighth inches above the sidewalk. At the middle it was two and one-sixteenth inches, and at the other extreme it was three and one-sixteenth inches above the sidewalk. The jury should not have been permitted to weigh this differential, inconsiderable in the particular circumstances of this case, as a ground of negligence. On the other hand, a question of fact still remains as to whether under all the circumstances the owner of the building had an obligation to provide more light than it did to illuminate the approach to the top step. Precisely in point is the case of Leventhal v. Cinema Realty & Leasing Corp. (278 App. Div. 900, affd. 303 N. Y. 919).

Judgment for plaintiff should be reversed and a new trial granted.

Peck, P. J., Cohit, Breitel, Bastow and Boteih, JJ., concur.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

There was no proof of structural defect with respect to the top step of the stairway in question. The sidewalk not being level, of necessity the first step must have had a differential in level in relation to the graded sidewalk. At one end the step was one and one-eighth inches above the sidewalk. At the middle it was two and one-sixteenth inches, and at the other extreme it was three and one-sixteenth inches above the sidewalk. The jury should not have been permitted to weigh this differential, inconsiderable in the particular circumstances of this case, as a ground of negligence. On the other hand, a question of fact still remains as to whether under all the circumstances the owner of the building had an obligation to provide more light than it did to illuminate the approach to the top step. Precisely in point is the case of Leventhal v. Cinema Realty & Leasing Corp. (278 App. Div. 900, affd. 303 N. Y. 919).

Judgment for plaintiff should be reversed and a new trial granted.

Peck, P. J., Cohit, Breitel, Bastow and Boteih, JJ., concur.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 491, 125 N.Y.S.2d 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillge-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack