MacDonough v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacDonough v. State

272 A.D.2d 846

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

DecidedMay 7, 1947

DocketClaim. No. 27938

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 846 (MacDonough v. State) 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

MacDonough v. State, 272 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Cairns which dismissed a claim for personal injuries. Claimant alleged that she was injured by reason of a defective revolving door when leaving a State office building at No. 80 Centre Street, New York City. Negligence on the part of the State was charged on the basis that the door in question was not equipped with proper devices, in good repair, to keep its speed of revolution within reasonably safe limits. There was credible evidence to the effect that the door was designed and equipped at the time of installation in accordance with approved engineering and construction methods then in vogue, and was in good repair at the time of the alleged accident. The State was under no duty to install a governor under the circumstances disclosed. There were no errors in the rejection or admission of testimony sufficient to require a reversal, and the decision is supported by the evidence as a whole. Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur.

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

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Cairns which dismissed a claim for personal injuries. Claimant alleged that she was injured by reason of a defective revolving door when leaving a State office building at No. 80 Centre Street, New York City. Negligence on the part of the State was charged on the basis that the door in question was not equipped with proper devices, in good repair, to keep its speed of revolution within reasonably safe limits. There was credible evidence to the effect that the door was designed and equipped at the time of installation in accordance with approved engineering and construction methods then in vogue, and was in good repair at the time of the alleged accident. The State was under no duty to install a governor under the circumstances disclosed. There were no errors in the rejection or admission of testimony sufficient to require a reversal, and the decision is supported by the evidence as a whole. Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonough-v-state-nyappdiv-1947.