Lynch v. City of Beacon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lynch v. City of Beacon

269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 536

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

DecidedApril 23, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 757 (Lynch v. City of Beacon) 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

Lynch v. City of Beacon, 269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff, a pedestrian, when her foot came in contact with a curbing abutting a driveway which ran across the sidewalk. The curbing was elevated between one and one quarter and two inches. Judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial dismissed, without costs. The undisputed physical facts, as shown by the photographs, as well as the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff, show that the elevation was slight and had none of the characteristics of a trap or a snare. (Hayes v. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 535; Messmer V. De Rosa, 265 App. Div. 958; Dowd v. City of Buffalo, 290 N. Y. 895; [758]*758Griffin v. Town of Harrison, 268 N. Y. 238; Parslow v. Town of Williamson, 266 N. Y. 438; Butler v. Village of Oxford, 186 N. Y. 444.) Close, P. J., Cars well, Johnston, Adel and Aldrich, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 843.)

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

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff, a pedestrian, when her foot came in contact with a curbing abutting a driveway which ran across the sidewalk. The curbing was elevated between one and one quarter and two inches. Judgment was entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial dismissed, without costs. The undisputed physical facts, as shown by the photographs, as well as the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff, show that the elevation was slight and had none of the characteristics of a trap or a snare. (Hayes v. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 535; Messmer V. De Rosa, 265 App. Div. 958; Dowd v. City of Buffalo, 290 N. Y. 895; [758]*758Griffin v. Town of Harrison, 268 N. Y. 238; Parslow v. Town of Williamson, 266 N. Y. 438; Butler v. Village of Oxford, 186 N. Y. 444.) Close, P. J., Cars well, Johnston, Adel and Aldrich, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 843.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 757, 54 N.Y.S.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-city-of-beacon-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack