Langfelder v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langfelder v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 309

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 309 (Langfelder v. City of New York) 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

Langfelder v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan, J.

Plaintiff has recovered a judgment against the owner of premises 1919 Prospect Avenue, Bronx, New York City, for damages for personal injuries sustained on September [310]*31015, 1941, when plaintiff was caused to trip over a small hole in the sidewalk in front of said premises. Plaintiff’s proof showed that the hole was dug in the highway in 1939 by a former tenant who inserted in it a brace to support a retaining wall on the premises. The brace was removed a week after its erection, but the hole was permitted to remain. There is no evidence that defendant-appellant owned the premises in 1939, or that it had any knowledge as to how the hole was created, or that it had any information that it was ever used in connection with the property.

Accordingly, we find no evidence in the record which would support a finding that the-defendant-appellant or anyone for whose acts it would be liable created the hole, or that defendant-appellant maintained or used same for the benefit of its property.

Under the circumstances there was no basis for the judgment against defendant-appellant. (Nickelsburg v. City of New York, 263 App. Div. 625.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Callahan, J.

Plaintiff has recovered a judgment against the owner of premises 1919 Prospect Avenue, Bronx, New York City, for damages for personal injuries sustained on September [310]*31015, 1941, when plaintiff was caused to trip over a small hole in the sidewalk in front of said premises. Plaintiff’s proof showed that the hole was dug in the highway in 1939 by a former tenant who inserted in it a brace to support a retaining wall on the premises. The brace was removed a week after its erection, but the hole was permitted to remain. There is no evidence that defendant-appellant owned the premises in 1939, or that it had any knowledge as to how the hole was created, or that it had any information that it was ever used in connection with the property.

Accordingly, we find no evidence in the record which would support a finding that the-defendant-appellant or anyone for whose acts it would be liable created the hole, or that defendant-appellant maintained or used same for the benefit of its property.

Under the circumstances there was no basis for the judgment against defendant-appellant. (Nickelsburg v. City of New York, 263 App. Div. 625.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langfelder-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack