Jools v. Schatz Halpun Catering Corp.
This text of 5 Misc. 2d 613 (Jools v. Schatz Halpun Catering Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There is no proof in the record of any negligence on the part of the defendant, nor is there any competent testimony to indicate the cause of the accident. The mere happening of the accident without any proof of the cause thereof does not give rise to a cause of action (Beutenmiller v. West End Tavern, 285 App. Div. 820, affd. 1 N Y 2d 652). The refusal of the court below to dismiss the complaint at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case was, therefore, improper, and the judgment in favor of plaintiff may not be permitted to stand.
The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
Eder, Hecht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Misc. 2d 613, 158 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jools-v-schatz-halpun-catering-corp-nyappterm-1956.