Lotito v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lotito v. City of New York

278 A.D. 581, 101 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4020

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 581 (Lotito 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

Lotito v. City of New York, 278 A.D. 581, 101 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell because of an alleged defective condition of a sidewalk, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. During the plaintiff’s case, counsel attempted to show that his client was suffering from defective vision at the time of the accident. Such proof was proper at that time on the question of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, but the court sustained an objection thereto. This was prejudicial error. (Shields v. Consolidated Gas Co., 193 App. Div. 86.) Further, it was error to charge, in effect, that no liability could be east upon the city unless the hole or defect in the street was at least four inches deep. (Loughran v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 320.) Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs in the result.

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 sustained by plaintiff when she fell because of an alleged defective condition of a sidewalk, plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. During the plaintiff’s case, counsel attempted to show that his client was suffering from defective vision at the time of the accident. Such proof was proper at that time on the question of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, but the court sustained an objection thereto. This was prejudicial error. (Shields v. Consolidated Gas Co., 193 App. Div. 86.) Further, it was error to charge, in effect, that no liability could be east upon the city unless the hole or defect in the street was at least four inches deep. (Loughran v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 320.) Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 581, 101 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lotito-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack