Lande v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lande v. New York City Board of Education

222 A.D.2d 656, 635 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13964

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered March 23, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $172,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On January 12, 1990, the plaintiff suffered injuries when he slipped and fell on water that was on the floor near a water fountain at Dewey Junior High School in Brooklyn. There was evidence adduced at trial that water spilling from the water fountain was a recurring problem of which the defendant was aware. The jury, therefore, properly concluded that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Hirschman v City of New York, 193 AD2d 581; Weisenthal v Pickman, 153 AD2d 849). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, 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 injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered March 23, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $172,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On January 12, 1990, the plaintiff suffered injuries when he slipped and fell on water that was on the floor near a water fountain at Dewey Junior High School in Brooklyn. There was evidence adduced at trial that water spilling from the water fountain was a recurring problem of which the defendant was aware. The jury, therefore, properly concluded that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries (see, Hirschman v City of New York, 193 AD2d 581; Weisenthal v Pickman, 153 AD2d 849). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Lande v. New York City Board of Education, 222 A.D.2d 656, 635 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

222 A.D.2d 656 (Lande v. New York City Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related