Phillips v. 630 McKinley Square Corp.

285 A.D. 18, 135 N.Y.S.2d 272
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 23, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 285 A.D. 18 (Phillips v. 630 McKinley Square 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
Phillips v. 630 McKinley Square Corp., 285 A.D. 18, 135 N.Y.S.2d 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Recovery here is claimed to be justified by the fact that the sidewalk had been painted and was slippery when wet by rain. The paint had been applied long before the accident and was thoroughly dry and somewhat worn. No proof was adduced to establish that the paint was in anywise defective or contained improper materials or had been improperly applied. To hold abutting owners and the city liable in such state of facts would be to impose an intolerable burden.

If this judgment is affirmed, the mere painting of the curb of sidewalks, to mark the stoppage places of buses could, on wet days, give occasion to numerous causes of action on which recovery could be had against the city and against the bus companies. All that plaintiff established basically was that the painted sidewalk was slippery when wet by rain, and that was due to the rain that was falling at the time, for which defendants were not responsible.

On the state of facts disclosed, we think plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence against defendant, the abutting owner or against the city.

As plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence against the abutting owner, it is unnecessary to pass upon the issue involving indemnity against the abutting owner in favor of the city.

The judgment entered on the verdict of the trial court sitting without a jury should be reversed, with one bill of costs to defendants-appellants and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

Bock v. Loumarita Realty Corp.
118 A.D.3d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Larussa v. Shell Oil Co.
283 A.D.2d 403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Komornik v. Caroca
274 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Radaelli v. City of Troy
229 A.D.2d 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Wessels v. Service Merchandise, Inc.
187 A.D.2d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Bacon v. Altamont Farms, Inc.
33 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.D. 18, 135 N.Y.S.2d 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-630-mckinley-square-corp-nyappdiv-1954.