Mandia v. Wilson & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandia v. Wilson & Co.

262 A.D. 1038, 30 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7140

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 1038 (Mandia v. Wilson & Co.) 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

Mandia v. Wilson & Co., 262 A.D. 1038, 30 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of a fall on a stairway in premises leased by respondent and within its control, judgment for respondent in accordance with the granting of a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff’s case, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The proof would warrant a finding that the proximate cause of the happening of the accident was the presence of grease on the step from which plaintiff slipped. Notice, actual or constructive, or proof that respondent itself had caused the condition, was essential to recovery. The alleged admission by one Hadley to the effect that he had told employees of the respondent to clean up the grease was sufficient in this respect. The status of Hadley with respect to the respondent, namely, as its manager or superintendent, was testified to by plaintiff and his son, without objection, and was not the subject of dispute at the trial or on this appeal. Lazansky, ■ P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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 reason of a fall on a stairway in premises leased by respondent and within its control, judgment for respondent in accordance with the granting of a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff’s case, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The proof would warrant a finding that the proximate cause of the happening of the accident was the presence of grease on the step from which plaintiff slipped. Notice, actual or constructive, or proof that respondent itself had caused the condition, was essential to recovery. The alleged admission by one Hadley to the effect that he had told employees of the respondent to clean up the grease was sufficient in this respect. The status of Hadley with respect to the respondent, namely, as its manager or superintendent, was testified to by plaintiff and his son, without objection, and was not the subject of dispute at the trial or on this appeal. Lazansky, ■ P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 1038, 30 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandia-v-wilson-co-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack