Romano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romano v. City of New York

254 A.D. 906, 5 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8256

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

DecidedJune 24, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 906 (Romano 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

Romano v. City of New York, 254 A.D. 906, 5 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action by plaintiff for personal injuries suffered by reason of a claimed defect or hole in a sidewalk in which was lying a portion of an automobile spring claimed to have come from the junk yard of the defendants Cutler, the court directed a verdict in favor of all the defendants. As to defendant city of New York, judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial on the ground that there was a question of fact as to the depth of the hole. As to defendants Cutler, judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, on the ground that there was a question of fact as to liability based on the “ metal spring ” and responsibility therefor. (Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc., 252 N. Y. 532.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Adel and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

— In an action by plaintiff for personal injuries suffered by reason of a claimed defect or hole in a sidewalk in which was lying a portion of an automobile spring claimed to have come from the junk yard of the defendants Cutler, the court directed a verdict in favor of all the defendants. As to defendant city of New York, judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Davis, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial on the ground that there was a question of fact as to the depth of the hole. As to defendants Cutler, judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, on the ground that there was a question of fact as to liability based on the “ metal spring ” and responsibility therefor. (Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Co., Inc., 252 N. Y. 532.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Adel and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 906, 5 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack