Powell v. George's Delivery Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powell v. George's Delivery Service

28 A.D.2d 1120, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2906

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 1120 (Powell v. George's Delivery Service) 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

Powell v. George's Delivery Service, 28 A.D.2d 1120, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

[1121]*1121Concur — Stevens, J P., Eager, Tilzer and Babin, JJ.; Capozzoli, J., dissents in the following memorandum: The testimony of the plaintiff concerning his conversation with the defendant, as to why the latter took the elevator and why he failed to leave someone at the door, or put up a sign, was sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether the defendant did operate the elevator and whether, in so doing, he exercised reasonable care. Further, the question of contributory negligence was for the jury, in view of the peculiar physical construction of the elevator, which, under the circumstances disclosed in the record, required one to enter the elevator in order to turn on the light switch. The failure of the trial court to allow this ease to go to the jury was error and I, therefore, vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.

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

[1121]*1121Concur — Stevens, J P., Eager, Tilzer and Babin, JJ.; Capozzoli, J., dissents in the following memorandum: The testimony of the plaintiff concerning his conversation with the defendant, as to why the latter took the elevator and why he failed to leave someone at the door, or put up a sign, was sufficient to raise issues of fact as to whether the defendant did operate the elevator and whether, in so doing, he exercised reasonable care. Further, the question of contributory negligence was for the jury, in view of the peculiar physical construction of the elevator, which, under the circumstances disclosed in the record, required one to enter the elevator in order to turn on the light switch. The failure of the trial court to allow this ease to go to the jury was error and I, therefore, vote to reverse and remand for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 1120, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-georges-delivery-service-nyappdiv-1967.