Panoff v. Anrob Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panoff v. Anrob Realty Co.

16 A.D.2d 774, 228 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9491

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

DecidedMay 24, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 774 (Panoff v. Anrob Realty 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

Panoff v. Anrob Realty Co., 16 A.D.2d 774, 228 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in the sum of $70,238 in favor of plaintiff in a personal injury negligence action, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to establish actionable negligence against defendant. Defendant was not in possession of the premises. (Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, Inc., 13 A D 2d 199.) It is undisputed that at the time and site of the occurrence the lighting equipment was adequate and usable. The tenant, who was plaintiff’s employer, was in possession. The obligation, if any, to turn on the light on the premises at the time of the occurrence was at best the employer’s. Further, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by proceeding in the darkness in an area unfamiliar to him, especially when an approach to the men’s room familiar to the plaintiff which avoided the stairway was available. (Dunn v. White Plains Housing Auth., 8 A D 2d 839, affd. 7 N Y 2d 944.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Judgment in the sum of $70,238 in favor of plaintiff in a personal injury negligence action, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs to defendant-appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to establish actionable negligence against defendant. Defendant was not in possession of the premises. (Berman v. H. J. Enterprises, Inc., 13 A D 2d 199.) It is undisputed that at the time and site of the occurrence the lighting equipment was adequate and usable. The tenant, who was plaintiff’s employer, was in possession. The obligation, if any, to turn on the light on the premises at the time of the occurrence was at best the employer’s. Further, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by proceeding in the darkness in an area unfamiliar to him, especially when an approach to the men’s room familiar to the plaintiff which avoided the stairway was available. (Dunn v. White Plains Housing Auth., 8 A D 2d 839, affd. 7 N Y 2d 944.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 774, 228 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panoff-v-anrob-realty-co-nyappdiv-1962.