Rivera v. Purkan Associates Inc.

38 A.D.2d 965, 331 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5122
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 20, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 965 (Rivera v. Purkan Associates Inc.) 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
Rivera v. Purkan Associates Inc., 38 A.D.2d 965, 331 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 16, 1971, as is against him and in favor of defendant, and (2) the defendant third-party plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the judgment as is against it and in favor of third-party defendant the Brooklyn Hospital, upon the trial court’s decision at the close of the case upon a jury trial of the issues of liability, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and the third-party complaint as against said third-party defendant. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted upon plaintiff’s complaint and the third-party complaint as against the Brooklyn Hospital, with costs to abide the event, but without costs to the Brooklyn Hospital. The appeals did not present any questions of fact. In our opinion there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could have rationally found for plaintiff. The statement of the trial court that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law was in error. The issue of whether plaintiff’s descending a darkened stairway while holding the bannister constituted contributory negligence was an issue of fact for the jury (Reider v. Whitebrook Realty Corp., 23 A D 2d 691, 692). Since we are reversing as to the dismissal of the complaint and granting a new trial to plaintiff, we also reverse and grant a new trial as to the third-party complaint as against the Brooklyn Hospital. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hernandez v. City of New York
156 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Hall v. Consolidated Edison Corp.
104 Misc. 2d 565 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.2d 965, 331 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-purkan-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1972.