Panella v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panella v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral

20 A.D.2d 660, 246 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4532

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 660 (Panella v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral) 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

Panella v. Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral, 20 A.D.2d 660, 246 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by defendant’s negligence, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 15, 1963, which denied its motion, made upon the jury’s disagreement after trial, for a directed verdict, pursuant to section 457-a of the former Civil Practice Act. Order reversed on the law, with costs; defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in its favor granted; and complaint dismissed. The proof does not present any issue of fact, and no such issue was considered. Plaintiff testified that she was caused to fall by the existence of a heap of sweepings, dirt, pebbles and stones, alongside a grave she was visiting at defendant’s cemetery; and that there were men working in the area. There was no evidence as to how the heap originated. While it might be inferred that it was created by the men working in the area, there is no evidence connecting these men with the defendant. Nor is there any evidence of actual notice; and the only evidence of constructive notice is that the condition had existed, before plaintiff’s fall, for a period of an hour or an hour and a half. In our opinion, the evidence of constructive notice was insufficient, as a matter of law, to form a basis for submission of the case to the jury. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by defendant’s negligence, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 15, 1963, which denied its motion, made upon the jury’s disagreement after trial, for a directed verdict, pursuant to section 457-a of the former Civil Practice Act. Order reversed on the law, with costs; defendant’s motion for a directed verdict in its favor granted; and complaint dismissed. The proof does not present any issue of fact, and no such issue was considered. Plaintiff testified that she was caused to fall by the existence of a heap of sweepings, dirt, pebbles and stones, alongside a grave she was visiting at defendant’s cemetery; and that there were men working in the area. There was no evidence as to how the heap originated. While it might be inferred that it was created by the men working in the area, there is no evidence connecting these men with the defendant. Nor is there any evidence of actual notice; and the only evidence of constructive notice is that the condition had existed, before plaintiff’s fall, for a period of an hour or an hour and a half. In our opinion, the evidence of constructive notice was insufficient, as a matter of law, to form a basis for submission of the case to the jury. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 660, 246 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panella-v-trustees-of-st-patricks-cathedral-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack