Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. City of New York

7 A.D.2d 752, 181 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 752 (Rodriguez v. City of New York) 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

Rodriguez v. City of New York, 7 A.D.2d 752, 181 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the entire case. Appellant was injured when he tripped over the edge of a break in a public sidewalk. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: Under all the circumstances, a question of fact was presented for the jury as to whether the defect in the sidewalk was the proximate cause of appellant’s fall and consequent injuries — bearing in mind that the locus in quo is part of an extremely busy and crowded thoroughfare and is adjacent to a subway entrance.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the entire case. Appellant was injured when he tripped over the edge of a break in a public sidewalk. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: Under all the circumstances, a question of fact was presented for the jury as to whether the defect in the sidewalk was the proximate cause of appellant’s fall and consequent injuries — bearing in mind that the locus in quo is part of an extremely busy and crowded thoroughfare and is adjacent to a subway entrance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 752, 181 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1958.