Pupek v. Wesnofski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pupek v. Wesnofski

264 A.D. 880, 35 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226

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

DecidedJune 15, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 880 (Pupek v. Wesnofski) 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

Pupek v. Wesnofski, 264 A.D. 880, 35 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as the result of falling into an open excavation on defendant Wesnofski’s farm. The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. While we believe plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a question for the jury, the judgment must be affirmed because the evidence conclusively shows that plaintiff was a mere trespasser or, at most, a bare licensee. Plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of defendants. (Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P, J.. Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as the result of falling into an open excavation on defendant Wesnofski’s farm. The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. While we believe plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a question for the jury, the judgment must be affirmed because the evidence conclusively shows that plaintiff was a mere trespasser or, at most, a bare licensee. Plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of defendants. (Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181.) Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P, J.. Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 880, 35 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pupek-v-wesnofski-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack