McArthur v. Elad Conservatory, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McArthur v. Elad Conservatory, Inc.

26 A.D.2d 528, 270 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3985

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

DecidedJune 16, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 528 (McArthur v. Elad Conservatory, Inc.) 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

McArthur v. Elad Conservatory, Inc., 26 A.D.2d 528, 270 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment for plaintiff, entered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant, and complaint dismissed on the law, with taxable costs. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a dance floor, maintained by the defendant, Dale Dance Studio, as she was taking the first steps of a dance lesson being given to her by the defendant’s teacher. Her testimony and the testimony of a witness that the floor was “ highly polished ” and that there was no “ traction ” or powder on the floor did not establish a case. (See Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas, 24 A D 2d 716; Gough v. Wadhams Mills Grange No. 1015, P. of 3., 279 App. Div. 825; Iorio v. Rockland Light & Power Co., 274 App. Div. 791; Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc 2d 201, affd. 16 A D 2d 760.) Although there was testimony that, on prior occasions, the defendant had placed a powdery substance on its dance floors, the nature of the substance and the purpose of the application was not established. Consequently, a ease was not made out by the testimony that there was no resin, powder or other substance on the floor when the plaintiff fell. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment for plaintiff, entered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to the defendant, and complaint dismissed on the law, with taxable costs. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a dance floor, maintained by the defendant, Dale Dance Studio, as she was taking the first steps of a dance lesson being given to her by the defendant’s teacher. Her testimony and the testimony of a witness that the floor was “ highly polished ” and that there was no “ traction ” or powder on the floor did not establish a case. (See Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas, 24 A D 2d 716; Gough v. Wadhams Mills Grange No. 1015, P. of 3., 279 App. Div. 825; Iorio v. Rockland Light & Power Co., 274 App. Div. 791; Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc 2d 201, affd. 16 A D 2d 760.) Although there was testimony that, on prior occasions, the defendant had placed a powdery substance on its dance floors, the nature of the substance and the purpose of the application was not established. Consequently, a ease was not made out by the testimony that there was no resin, powder or other substance on the floor when the plaintiff fell. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 528, 270 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcarthur-v-elad-conservatory-inc-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack