Levine v. R. H. Macy & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levine v. R. H. Macy & Co.

20 A.D.2d 761, 247 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 761 (Levine v. R. H. Macy & Co.) 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

Levine v. R. H. Macy & Co., 20 A.D.2d 761, 247 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered in plaintiffs’ favor unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to the appellants, and the complaint dismissed. The record in this case mandates a conclusion that the defendant was, as a matter of law, free of negligence. There was no proof that the method adopted to join the carpet to the floor was other than an accepted and proper one or that the installation was negligently performed. However, even if it could be found that there was a defect at the place where plaintiff fell, it would be only of a most trivial nature. Such a defect, being neither a trap nor a nuisance, would not suffice to cause the defendant to foresee danger to others resulting therefrom (Heeney v. Topping, 18 A D 2d 618, affd 13 N T 2d 1049; Liebel V. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A D 2d 1006). Absent such foreseeability the defendant may not be held guilty of negligence. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment entered in plaintiffs’ favor unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to the appellants, and the complaint dismissed. The record in this case mandates a conclusion that the defendant was, as a matter of law, free of negligence. There was no proof that the method adopted to join the carpet to the floor was other than an accepted and proper one or that the installation was negligently performed. However, even if it could be found that there was a defect at the place where plaintiff fell, it would be only of a most trivial nature. Such a defect, being neither a trap nor a nuisance, would not suffice to cause the defendant to foresee danger to others resulting therefrom (Heeney v. Topping, 18 A D 2d 618, affd 13 N T 2d 1049; Liebel V. Metropolitan Jockey Club, 10 A D 2d 1006). Absent such foreseeability the defendant may not be held guilty of negligence. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 761, 247 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-r-h-macy-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack