Psygoda v. Parkchester Apts. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Psygoda v. Parkchester Apts. Co.

50 A.D.2d 552, 375 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12291

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 552 (Psygoda v. Parkchester Apts. Co.) 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

Psygoda v. Parkchester Apts. Co., 50 A.D.2d 552, 375 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 4, 1975, after trial to a jury, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Plaintiff-respondent tenant fell on ice on the premises of defendant-appellant landlord. There was evidence that, immediately before and at the time of the occurrence, there was ongoing precipitation at a freezing temperature, and the jury could have so found. In the circumstances, it was error for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury in respect of the nature of defendant’s duty to clear away accumulations on the walk during progress of the storm. (See Bressler v Rule Realty Co., 219 App Div 529.) The jury could easily have been confused by lack of instruction on this point, and a new trial is indicated. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Tilzer, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 4, 1975, after trial to a jury, unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial directed with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. Plaintiff-respondent tenant fell on ice on the premises of defendant-appellant landlord. There was evidence that, immediately before and at the time of the occurrence, there was ongoing precipitation at a freezing temperature, and the jury could have so found. In the circumstances, it was error for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury in respect of the nature of defendant’s duty to clear away accumulations on the walk during progress of the storm. (See Bressler v Rule Realty Co., 219 App Div 529.) The jury could easily have been confused by lack of instruction on this point, and a new trial is indicated. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Tilzer, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 552, 375 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/psygoda-v-parkchester-apts-co-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack