Ostrom v. Patchogue Electric Light Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ostrom v. Patchogue Electric Light Co.

32 A.D.2d 671, 300 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896

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

DecidedMay 26, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 671 (Ostrom v. Patchogue Electric Light Co.) 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

Ostrom v. Patchogue Electric Light Co., 32 A.D.2d 671, 300 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 13, 1968, in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case on a jury trial. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff sustained his injuries when a crane upon which he was standing apparently came in contact with defendant’s high tension wires. On the record presented, including the fact that defendant’s wires were set back at least 50 feet from the traveled portion of a secondary road in a sparsely inhabited area, and that the accident apparently occurred on the morning of the first day that the crane was at the site of the accident, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly held, as a matter of law, that defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that a crane would be operated in close proximity to its wires. (Cf. Mikolasko v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 8 A D 2d 648, mot. for lv. to app. den. 7 N Y 2d 707; Moses v. City of New York, 15 A D 2d 534, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 643.) Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 13, 1968, in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case on a jury trial. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff sustained his injuries when a crane upon which he was standing apparently came in contact with defendant’s high tension wires. On the record presented, including the fact that defendant’s wires were set back at least 50 feet from the traveled portion of a secondary road in a sparsely inhabited area, and that the accident apparently occurred on the morning of the first day that the crane was at the site of the accident, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly held, as a matter of law, that defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that a crane would be operated in close proximity to its wires. (Cf. Mikolasko v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 8 A D 2d 648, mot. for lv. to app. den. 7 N Y 2d 707; Moses v. City of New York, 15 A D 2d 534, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 643.) Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 671, 300 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostrom-v-patchogue-electric-light-co-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack