Perez v. Frazee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Frazee

24 A.D.2d 686, 261 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3551

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 686 (Perez v. Frazee) 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

Perez v. Frazee, 24 A.D.2d 686, 261 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court which dismissed the complaint, in a negligence action, at the close of the plaintiffs’ case. There were apparently alternate ways of access to the trailer which plaintiffs occupied and plaintiff wife chose to walk on a way or rutted track made by vehicles traversing the farm pasture, and in so doing fell and was injured. The existent conditions were apparent when plaintiffs’ occupancy began. In a recent case similar to this, although the facts were markedly stronger in plaintiff’s favor than here, we affirmed a nonsuit, remarking upon plaintiff’s acceptance of the “practical necessities” of the physical situation and holding “ unrealistic and unreasonable ” plaintiff’s contention that defendant was required to maintain its private road “ clear of all hazards to pedestrians resulting from its normal, necessary and intended use and from the vagaries of Winter weather.” (Denning v. Pioneer Trailer Sales, 20 A D 2d 846, 847.) Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court which dismissed the complaint, in a negligence action, at the close of the plaintiffs’ case. There were apparently alternate ways of access to the trailer which plaintiffs occupied and plaintiff wife chose to walk on a way or rutted track made by vehicles traversing the farm pasture, and in so doing fell and was injured. The existent conditions were apparent when plaintiffs’ occupancy began. In a recent case similar to this, although the facts were markedly stronger in plaintiff’s favor than here, we affirmed a nonsuit, remarking upon plaintiff’s acceptance of the “practical necessities” of the physical situation and holding “ unrealistic and unreasonable ” plaintiff’s contention that defendant was required to maintain its private road “ clear of all hazards to pedestrians resulting from its normal, necessary and intended use and from the vagaries of Winter weather.” (Denning v. Pioneer Trailer Sales, 20 A D 2d 846, 847.) Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 686, 261 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-frazee-nyappdiv-1965.