Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co.

254 A.D. 633, 3 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6794

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 633 (Mazzu v. Darojo Realty 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

Mazzu v. Darojo Realty Co., 254 A.D. 633, 3 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The court erroneously allowed the jury to predicate negligence on the defendant’s violation of a common-law duty (irrespective of the building ordinances) to furnish proper exits. In our opinion no such duty toward this plaintiff existed. The only basis for a finding of negligence in this case on the record before us is in the violation [634]*634of the applicable provisions of the building code or ordinance. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action for personal injuries sustained while escaping from a fire in a rooming house. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The court erroneously allowed the jury to predicate negligence on the defendant’s violation of a common-law duty (irrespective of the building ordinances) to furnish proper exits. In our opinion no such duty toward this plaintiff existed. The only basis for a finding of negligence in this case on the record before us is in the violation [634]*634of the applicable provisions of the building code or ordinance. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action for personal injuries sustained while escaping from a fire in a rooming house. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 633, 3 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzu-v-darojo-realty-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack