Petersen v. Crawford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petersen v. Crawford

263 A.D. 617, 34 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961

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

DecidedApril 10, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 617 (Petersen v. Crawford) 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

Petersen v. Crawford, 263 A.D. 617, 34 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence was sufficient to establish that the infant plaintiff, who was a playmate of a tenant, was an invitee; and that the yard appurtenant to defendants’ apartment houses had been used for a long time by plaintiff and the children of the tenants so as to make it a place used with the knowledge and consent of defendants, thus charging them with the duty of keeping it in a reasonably safe condition. (Murtha v. Ridley, 232 N. Y. 488; Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567, 570; affd., 260 N. Y. 604.) There was also ample evidence to support a finding that defendants should have anticipated that the infant would be likely to play as he did, and that the defective condition [618]*618of the retaining wall of the yard might subject him to injury. (Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 282 N. Y. 442; Collentine v. City of New York, 279 id. 119.) Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence was sufficient to establish that the infant plaintiff, who was a playmate of a tenant, was an invitee; and that the yard appurtenant to defendants’ apartment houses had been used for a long time by plaintiff and the children of the tenants so as to make it a place used with the knowledge and consent of defendants, thus charging them with the duty of keeping it in a reasonably safe condition. (Murtha v. Ridley, 232 N. Y. 488; Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567, 570; affd., 260 N. Y. 604.) There was also ample evidence to support a finding that defendants should have anticipated that the infant would be likely to play as he did, and that the defective condition [618]*618of the retaining wall of the yard might subject him to injury. (Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 282 N. Y. 442; Collentine v. City of New York, 279 id. 119.) Accordingly, it was error to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 617, 34 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petersen-v-crawford-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack