Penn v. International Business Machines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Penn v. International Business Machines, Inc.

40 A.D.2d 1019, 338 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1019 (Penn v. International Business Machines, Inc.) 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

Penn v. International Business Machines, Inc., 40 A.D.2d 1019, 338 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 17, 1972, as is against them and in favor of [1020]*1020defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, and (2) defendant third-party plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from the remainder of the judgment, which is against it and in favor of the third-party defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the third-party complaint. Said decisions of the trial court were rendered at the close of the evidence upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeals did not present questions of fact. In our opinion, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which inferences could reasonably be drawn that defendant was negligent in that it maintained a dangerous condition (to wit: the step in defendant’s office from which the injured plaintiff,.á business invitee, fell) without giving adequate notice thereof. The question of whether the injured plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was for the jury. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, 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, etc., (1) plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 17, 1972, as is against them and in favor of [1020]*1020defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, and (2) defendant third-party plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from the remainder of the judgment, which is against it and in favor of the third-party defendant, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the third-party complaint. Said decisions of the trial court were rendered at the close of the evidence upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The appeals did not present questions of fact. In our opinion, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which inferences could reasonably be drawn that defendant was negligent in that it maintained a dangerous condition (to wit: the step in defendant’s office from which the injured plaintiff,.á business invitee, fell) without giving adequate notice thereof. The question of whether the injured plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was for the jury. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1019, 338 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-v-international-business-machines-inc-nyappdiv-1972.