McCormack v. City of Brooklyn

New York City Court

McCormack v. City of Brooklyn

14 Misc. 649, 35 N.Y.S. 1111, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 888

DecidedNovember 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Misc. 649 (McCormack v. City of Brooklyn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCormack v. City of Brooklyn, 14 Misc. 649, 35 N.Y.S. 1111, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 888 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Wyck, J.

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint, and he and his witnesses testify, that defendant suffered a loose flagstone to remain upon the flagged part of the sidewalk, and that plaintiff, while walking along such flagged portion, stumbled o ver this ■ loose flag resting. thereupon. The testimony of defendant’s witnesses was to the effect that no such loose flagstone rested upon' or projected over the flagged part of the walk. If this latter version be true, then .the former cannot be,, and we think the court properly instructed the jury that, unless the loose flag rested upon or projected over the flagged part of the walk, the plaintiff cannot recover. We find no ruling to which, an exception 'was taken which was harmful to plaintiff.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.

Osborne, J., concurs.

Judgment and order, affirmed, with costs.'

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

Van Wyck, J.

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint, and he and his witnesses testify, that defendant suffered a loose flagstone to remain upon the flagged part of the sidewalk, and that plaintiff, while walking along such flagged portion, stumbled o ver this ■ loose flag resting. thereupon. The testimony of defendant’s witnesses was to the effect that no such loose flagstone rested upon' or projected over the flagged part of the walk. If this latter version be true, then .the former cannot be,, and we think the court properly instructed the jury that, unless the loose flag rested upon or projected over the flagged part of the walk, the plaintiff cannot recover. We find no ruling to which, an exception 'was taken which was harmful to plaintiff.

The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.

Osborne, J., concurs.

Judgment and order, affirmed, with costs.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Misc. 649, 35 N.Y.S. 1111, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormack-v-city-of-brooklyn-nycityct-1895.