Keegan v. Hohorst
This text of 235 A.D. 871 (Keegan v. Hohorst) 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.
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Company, Inc. (252 N. Y. 532) and Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 id. 622). Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents upon the ground that the law of the case requires a finding that the alleged grease spot on the sidewalk was placed there by the defendants or their employees, and that there is no evidence to support such a finding; further, that the proof is just as consistent with a finding that the grease spot was deposited by a customer of the defendants as it is with the finding reached by the jury.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
235 A.D. 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keegan-v-hohorst-nyappdiv-1932.