Monarch v. Kings Highway Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monarch v. Kings Highway Savings Bank

253 A.D. 760, 300 N.Y.S. 1121, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 760 (Monarch v. Kings Highway Savings Bank) 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

Monarch v. Kings Highway Savings Bank, 253 A.D. 760, 300 N.Y.S. 1121, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s intestate, while a guest in a bar and grill operated by a tenant under a written lease with the defendant, fell down a concrete stairway leading by a doorway from a washroom to the basement and suffered injuries causing his death. The evidence establishes beyond doubt that the stairway was under the exclusive control of the tenant and was not intended to be used and was not used by the public. It is also established without contradiction that the door leading to the stairway was locked and opened by force either by the decedent manually or by his falling against it. The plaintiff recovered judgment against the owner. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. There is no competent testimony in the record to show that the owner retained control of the stairway. Under the terms of the lease, he did not retain such control. (Cuttings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287.) Assuming that the stairway was in the same condition at the time of the leasing as it was on the day of the accident, the landlord cannot be held liable for such unexpected and unforeseen event. (Polemenakos v. Cohn, 234 App. Div. 563.) ■ Appeal from decision dismissed. An appeal does not lie therefrom. Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff’s intestate, while a guest in a bar and grill operated by a tenant under a written lease with the defendant, fell down a concrete stairway leading by a doorway from a washroom to the basement and suffered injuries causing his death. The evidence establishes beyond doubt that the stairway was under the exclusive control of the tenant and was not intended to be used and was not used by the public. It is also established without contradiction that the door leading to the stairway was locked and opened by force either by the decedent manually or by his falling against it. The plaintiff recovered judgment against the owner. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. There is no competent testimony in the record to show that the owner retained control of the stairway. Under the terms of the lease, he did not retain such control. (Cuttings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287.) Assuming that the stairway was in the same condition at the time of the leasing as it was on the day of the accident, the landlord cannot be held liable for such unexpected and unforeseen event. (Polemenakos v. Cohn, 234 App. Div. 563.) ■ Appeal from decision dismissed. An appeal does not lie therefrom. Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 760, 300 N.Y.S. 1121, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monarch-v-kings-highway-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack