Leininger v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leininger v. City of New York

181 A.D. 888

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D. 888 (Leininger 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

Leininger v. City of New York, 181 A.D. 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Although the mere difference in height of these flagstones on the sidewalk may not have established negligence of the city where an edge of one flagstone measured three and one-half inches above the edge of the next one, yet the jury could have found from the testimony of plaintiff that she had caught her foot under the edge of this raised flagstone. The evidence of the patrolman, Mahoney, showed that at this joint the water had washed out the dirt, leaving an opening in which the foot might be caught. This was confirmed from the evidence of a prior accident to the witness Braun at this place, by which her foot was caught, causing a fall and a knee dislocation. The facts raised an issue for the jury, with whose verdict we see [889]*889no occasion to interfere. The judgment and order are accordingly unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ.

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

Although the mere difference in height of these flagstones on the sidewalk may not have established negligence of the city where an edge of one flagstone measured three and one-half inches above the edge of the next one, yet the jury could have found from the testimony of plaintiff that she had caught her foot under the edge of this raised flagstone. The evidence of the patrolman, Mahoney, showed that at this joint the water had washed out the dirt, leaving an opening in which the foot might be caught. This was confirmed from the evidence of a prior accident to the witness Braun at this place, by which her foot was caught, causing a fall and a knee dislocation. The facts raised an issue for the jury, with whose verdict we see [889]*889no occasion to interfere. The judgment and order are accordingly unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leininger-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1917.