Rivera v. Spodack Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Spodack Realty Corp.

40 A.D.2d 795, 337 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3334

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 795 (Rivera v. Spodack Realty 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

Rivera v. Spodack Realty Corp., 40 A.D.2d 795, 337 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 1, 1971, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Kupferman, Murphy and Eager, JJ.; Nunez, J. P., and Capozzoli, J., dissent in the following memorandum by Capozzoli, J.: I vote to reverse and reinstate the jury’s verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff. There was sufficient evidence adduced at the trial to raise a [796]*796fair question of fact as to whether there was any causal connection between the alleged negligence of the defendant, in its failure to repair the window, and the fall of the infant plaintiff from same. The jury’s verdict should not have been disturbed by the court.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 1, 1971, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Kupferman, Murphy and Eager, JJ.; Nunez, J. P., and Capozzoli, J., dissent in the following memorandum by Capozzoli, J.: I vote to reverse and reinstate the jury’s verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff. There was sufficient evidence adduced at the trial to raise a [796]*796fair question of fact as to whether there was any causal connection between the alleged negligence of the defendant, in its failure to repair the window, and the fall of the infant plaintiff from same. The jury’s verdict should not have been disturbed by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 795, 337 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-spodack-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1972.