Marcus v. Manhattan Beach Parks Corp.

246 A.D. 331, 284 N.Y.S. 952, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9494
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1936·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

From the plaintiff’s proof and the photographs in evidence, the jury could have found that the defect which caused the plaintiff’s fall was the result of gradual wear or deterioration and that consequently the defendant was chargeable with constructive notice of the condition.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote for affirmance.

Judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Marcus v. Manhattan Beach Parks Corp., 246 A.D. 331, 284 N.Y.S. 952, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

246 A.D. 331 (Marcus v. Manhattan Beach Parks Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Batton v. Elghanayan
55 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Levi v. E. J. Korvette, Inc.
25 A.D.2d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Shapiro v. Hotel Corp. of America
25 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Keirstead v. City of New York
24 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Valle v. City of New York
22 Misc. 2d 985 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)