Hoffman v. Bachrach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Bachrach

20 A.D.2d 790, 248 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4268

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 790 (Hoffman v. Bachrach) 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

Hoffman v. Bachrach, 20 A.D.2d 790, 248 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury resulting from plaintiff’s fall on an icy stairway leading from the defendant’s home to the sidewalk, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 21, 1962, after a jury trial, dismissing the complaint at the end of plaintiff’s case. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the defendant was not negligent. Under the circumstances, the short interval which had elapsed between the time the defendant obtained notice of the icy condition and the time of the accident was not sufficient to charge him with the duty of correcting such condition (Preuschoff v. Wank, 16 A D 2d 690; Falina v. Hollis Diner, 281 App. Div. 711, affd. 306 N. Y. 586). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury resulting from plaintiff’s fall on an icy stairway leading from the defendant’s home to the sidewalk, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 21, 1962, after a jury trial, dismissing the complaint at the end of plaintiff’s case. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the defendant was not negligent. Under the circumstances, the short interval which had elapsed between the time the defendant obtained notice of the icy condition and the time of the accident was not sufficient to charge him with the duty of correcting such condition (Preuschoff v. Wank, 16 A D 2d 690; Falina v. Hollis Diner, 281 App. Div. 711, affd. 306 N. Y. 586). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 790, 248 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-bachrach-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack