Robinson v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. City of New York

5 Misc. 2d 714, 158 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Misc. 2d 714 (Robinson v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. City of New York, 5 Misc. 2d 714, 158 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Under the court’s charge the verdict could have been based upon negligent overcrowding or negligence in permitting the nun to sit in the terminal seeking alms. The evidence adduced at the trial does not establish a dangerous overcrowding or that the crowd was so excessive as to threaten plaintiff’s safety. There was no disorderliness or gang action. The alleged overcrowding and lack of guards were not the contributory causes of her fall. Plaintiff’s own testimony is to the effect that she was in a hurry to catch the 5 o’clock boat and that a man stepped aside and she hit something hard and did not see the nun sitting there. But, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is bound to see objects which by the proper use of her senses she might have seen (Abair v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 789; Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N. Y. 39).

[715]*715The judgment should he reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Hofstadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Under the court’s charge the verdict could have been based upon negligent overcrowding or negligence in permitting the nun to sit in the terminal seeking alms. The evidence adduced at the trial does not establish a dangerous overcrowding or that the crowd was so excessive as to threaten plaintiff’s safety. There was no disorderliness or gang action. The alleged overcrowding and lack of guards were not the contributory causes of her fall. Plaintiff’s own testimony is to the effect that she was in a hurry to catch the 5 o’clock boat and that a man stepped aside and she hit something hard and did not see the nun sitting there. But, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is bound to see objects which by the proper use of her senses she might have seen (Abair v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 789; Weigand v. United Traction Co., 221 N. Y. 39).

[715]*715The judgment should he reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Hofstadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Misc. 2d 714, 158 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack