Perevoskin v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perevoskin v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.

260 A.D. 939, 23 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5547

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D. 939 (Perevoskin v. New York Rapid Transit Corp.) 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

Perevoskin v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 260 A.D. 939, 23 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for damages for wrongful death. Plaintiff claims that her decedent slipped on a dangerous condition of frozen snow on defendant’s subway station platform and was precipitated into the space between two cars of a train coming into a station. The court dismissed the complaint. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The theory of the court’s action was that there was insufficient proof of notice. The proof on the issue of notice was prima facie sufficient to enable a jury to find that the defendant had constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its platform, because of which the plaintiff’s decedent fell. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Action for damages for wrongful death. Plaintiff claims that her decedent slipped on a dangerous condition of frozen snow on defendant’s subway station platform and was precipitated into the space between two cars of a train coming into a station. The court dismissed the complaint. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The theory of the court’s action was that there was insufficient proof of notice. The proof on the issue of notice was prima facie sufficient to enable a jury to find that the defendant had constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its platform, because of which the plaintiff’s decedent fell. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 939, 23 N.Y.S.2d 343, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perevoskin-v-new-york-rapid-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1940.