Muraco v. Fasbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muraco v. Fasbach

14 A.D.2d 898, 221 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8014

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 898 (Muraco v. Fasbach) 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

Muraco v. Fasbach, 14 A.D.2d 898, 221 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Beldock, Acting P. J„ Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint with the following memorandum; If it be assumed that the window sill was defective and that the jury were entitled to so find, it seems to me that the defective condition would not have become injurious until the plaintiff used it in what might be called or termed an unorthodox manner. So, too, I am of the opinion that in sitting on the window sill and knowing that the window did not function properly or that a part of the window or frame or sill was defective, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

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

Beldock, Acting P. J„ Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint with the following memorandum; If it be assumed that the window sill was defective and that the jury were entitled to so find, it seems to me that the defective condition would not have become injurious until the plaintiff used it in what might be called or termed an unorthodox manner. So, too, I am of the opinion that in sitting on the window sill and knowing that the window did not function properly or that a part of the window or frame or sill was defective, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 898, 221 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muraco-v-fasbach-nyappdiv-1961.