Patterson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patterson v. City of New York

163 A.D. 914, 147 N.Y.S. 1130, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1914·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs, as to the appellant the City of Hew York. Ho opinion. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event as to the appellant the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, upon the ground that, in the absence of evidence by plaintiff that the ear could have been stopped after the motorman had notice of the impending danger, no question of fact was raised which justified the court in submitting the question of said appellant’s negligence to the jury. (Albrecht v. Rochester, Syracuse & E. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 230.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ'., concurred.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs, as to the appellant the City of Hew York. Ho opinion. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event as to the appellant the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, upon the ground that, in the absence of evidence by plaintiff that the ear could have been stopped after the motorman had notice of the impending danger, no question of fact was raised which justified the court in submitting the question of said appellant’s negligence to the jury. (Albrecht v. Rochester, Syracuse & E. R. R. Co., 205 N. Y. 230.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ'., concurred.

Patterson v. City of New York, 163 A.D. 914, 147 N.Y.S. 1130, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

163 A.D. 914 (Patterson v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related