Licata v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Licata v. City of New York

249 A.D. 848, 292 N.Y.S. 524, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9979

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 848 (Licata 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

Licata v. City of New York, 249 A.D. 848, 292 N.Y.S. 524, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for damages for injuries sustained by an infant plaintiff, who fell from the top of a pile of beams lawfully placed on the highway, judgment for plaintiff reversed on the law and the complaint dismissed, with costs. In our opinion, the spaces of about five inches between the beams on ■the top of a pile, into one of which the infant plaintiff’s foot slipped, causing him to trip, did not create a dangerous condition which required the appellant to anticipate an accident such as happened to the infant plaintiff. In Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc. (270 N. Y. 217) the beams were piled in such an insecure and defective manner as to create an inherently dangerous condition. Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm. Appellant did not move to dismiss on the ground that a dangerous condition was not shown and did not except to the charge in that respect. It may not be held as a matter of law that appellant did not leave the lumber in a condition unsafe for children likely to play thereon.

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

In an action for damages for injuries sustained by an infant plaintiff, who fell from the top of a pile of beams lawfully placed on the highway, judgment for plaintiff reversed on the law and the complaint dismissed, with costs. In our opinion, the spaces of about five inches between the beams on ■the top of a pile, into one of which the infant plaintiff’s foot slipped, causing him to trip, did not create a dangerous condition which required the appellant to anticipate an accident such as happened to the infant plaintiff. In Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc. (270 N. Y. 217) the beams were piled in such an insecure and defective manner as to create an inherently dangerous condition. Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm. Appellant did not move to dismiss on the ground that a dangerous condition was not shown and did not except to the charge in that respect. It may not be held as a matter of law that appellant did not leave the lumber in a condition unsafe for children likely to play thereon.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 848, 292 N.Y.S. 524, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/licata-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack