Kreisman v. M. R. & M. R. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kreisman v. M. R. & M. R. Realty Corp.

263 A.D. 701, 30 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4557

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1941·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish actionable negligence. Present — Martín, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; O’Malley, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial on the ground that the plaintiffs established a prima facie ease upon the questions of negligence and contributory negligence. The fact that the mortgagee was allegedly in control of the building does not exculpate the owners. (Hecht v. Occhipinti Realty Co., Inc., 259 App. Div. 1008.) It was error, therefore, to dismiss the complaint at the close of the entire case.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish actionable negligence. Present — Martín, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; O’Malley, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial on the ground that the plaintiffs established a prima facie ease upon the questions of negligence and contributory negligence. The fact that the mortgagee was allegedly in control of the building does not exculpate the owners. (Hecht v. Occhipinti Realty Co., Inc., 259 App. Div. 1008.) It was error, therefore, to dismiss the complaint at the close of the entire case.

Kreisman v. M. R. & M. R. Realty Corp., 263 A.D. 701, 30 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

263 A.D. 701 (Kreisman v. M. R. & M. R. Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related