Holly v. Scirto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holly v. Scirto

246 A.D. 681

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 681 (Holly v. Scirto) 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

Holly v. Scirto, 246 A.D. 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event on the ground that the jury finding of negligence on the part of the defendants was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. Memorandum. There is no proof that any improper sawdust or ground cork was used upon the wet floor in the store in question. The most that can be claimed for the evidence is that such might have been used. This is not enough. There must be proof of carelessness on the part of the defendants in putting on the floor a dangerous substance. All concur, (The judgment was for damages for personal injuries sustained by falling on a store floor. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present—Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event on the ground that the jury finding of negligence on the part of the defendants was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. Memorandum. There is no proof that any improper sawdust or ground cork was used upon the wet floor in the store in question. The most that can be claimed for the evidence is that such might have been used. This is not enough. There must be proof of carelessness on the part of the defendants in putting on the floor a dangerous substance. All concur, (The judgment was for damages for personal injuries sustained by falling on a store floor. The order denied a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present—Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holly-v-scirto-nyappdiv-1935.