People v. Janosko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Janosko

5 A.D.2d 1005, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6261

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

DecidedApril 21, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 1005 (People v. Janosko) 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

People v. Janosko, 5 A.D.2d 1005, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdiet in favor of the adminis-tratrix. The intestate, a tenant in appellants’ building, was injured when he fell down an outside stairway appurtenant to said building, which injury it is alleged caused his death. There was testimony that the accident happened about 8:00 p.m. on October 6, 1951, that the intestate was accompanied by the administratrix and that the stairway was inadequately lighted and had no handrail. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed. The findings of fact are affirmed. No claim was made or established that appellants violated any statutory duty. At common law “there is no duty of an owner to light common ways absent some defective condition, unusual hazard or peculiar danger” (Kimbar v. Estis, 1 N Y 2d 399, 403; see, also, McCabe v. Mackay, 253 N. Y. 440, 233 App. Div. 101; Landes v. Barone, 283 App. Div. 207, affd. 307 N. Y. 867; Hirschler v. Briarcliff Management Corp., 275 App. Div. 422, affd. 300 N. Y. 680). The mere absence of a handrail on an exterior stairway is not a defective condition, an unusual hazard or a peculiar danger (see Indinali v. Lerner, 243 App. Div. 735; cf. Landes v. Barone, supra).

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 wrongful death and for conscious pain and suffering, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdiet in favor of the adminis-tratrix. The intestate, a tenant in appellants’ building, was injured when he fell down an outside stairway appurtenant to said building, which injury it is alleged caused his death. There was testimony that the accident happened about 8:00 p.m. on October 6, 1951, that the intestate was accompanied by the administratrix and that the stairway was inadequately lighted and had no handrail. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed. The findings of fact are affirmed. No claim was made or established that appellants violated any statutory duty. At common law “there is no duty of an owner to light common ways absent some defective condition, unusual hazard or peculiar danger” (Kimbar v. Estis, 1 N Y 2d 399, 403; see, also, McCabe v. Mackay, 253 N. Y. 440, 233 App. Div. 101; Landes v. Barone, 283 App. Div. 207, affd. 307 N. Y. 867; Hirschler v. Briarcliff Management Corp., 275 App. Div. 422, affd. 300 N. Y. 680). The mere absence of a handrail on an exterior stairway is not a defective condition, an unusual hazard or a peculiar danger (see Indinali v. Lerner, 243 App. Div. 735; cf. Landes v. Barone, supra).

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 1005, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-janosko-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack