Madara v. Town of Lima

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madara v. Town of Lima

259 A.D. 795, 20 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6680

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 20, 1940·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Crosby, P. J., who dissents and votes for reversal on the law and facts and for granting a new trial on the ground that the court should have charged the request that in order to render the defendant liable, the interference with travel must be dangerous, unusual or exceptional and different from the conditions ordinarily and generally brought about by the winter weather prevalent in the locality. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present —■ Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Crosby, P. J., who dissents and votes for reversal on the law and facts and for granting a new trial on the ground that the court should have charged the request that in order to render the defendant liable, the interference with travel must be dangerous, unusual or exceptional and different from the conditions ordinarily and generally brought about by the winter weather prevalent in the locality. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present —■ Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ.

Madara v. Town of Lima, 259 A.D. 795, 20 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

259 A.D. 795 (Madara v. Town of Lima) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.