McCabe v. Cohen

New York Court of Appeals

McCabe v. Cohen

63 N.E.2d 88, 294 N.Y. 522

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 19, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 63 N.E.2d 88 (McCabe v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCabe v. Cohen, 63 N.E.2d 88, 294 N.Y. 522 (N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the president of the defendant-appellant knew that the fire escapes, including the stairway in question, were “ at a point where further corrosion would make them dangerous ”; that he had reason to believe that the vendee would not realize the risk involved and that he failed to disclose this condition to the vendee. Under the rule approved in Kilmer v. White (254 N. Y. 64) and in Pharm v. Lituchy (283 N. Y. 130), the trial court properly refused to dismiss the complaint (Restatement of Torts, § 353).

In view of the defendant-appellant ’s failure to take proper exception to the charge with respect to sections 564-15.0 and C26-193.0 of the Administrative Code, we do not pass upon the applicability of those sections to the evidence in this record.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the president of the defendant-appellant knew that the fire escapes, including the stairway in question, were “ at a point where further corrosion would make them dangerous ”; that he had reason to believe that the vendee would not realize the risk involved and that he failed to disclose this condition to the vendee. Under the rule approved in Kilmer v. White (254 N. Y. 64) and in Pharm v. Lituchy (283 N. Y. 130), the trial court properly refused to dismiss the complaint (Restatement of Torts, § 353).

In view of the defendant-appellant ’s failure to take proper exception to the charge with respect to sections 564-15.0 and C26-193.0 of the Administrative Code, we do not pass upon the applicability of those sections to the evidence in this record.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.E.2d 88, 294 N.Y. 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccabe-v-cohen-ny-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack