Rosa v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosa v. City of New York

22 A.D.2d 667, 253 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3017

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1964·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellant. Plaintiff’s claim of negligence is that she was caused to fall because of a hole in the sidewalk. While the claim may be of doubtful merit and, under the circumstances of this case, the burden of proving liability on the part of the defendant a difficult one, such possibilities afford no reason to reject this appeal. Plaintiff is entitled to a fair and impartial opportunity to present her case. This she did not receive (Whitehead V. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 264 App. Div. 647; Kamen Soap Prods, v. Prusansky <fc Prusansky, 11 A D 2d 676; Buckley v. 2570 Broadway Corp., 12 A D 2d 473). Nor can we conclude that the exclusion of the proffered photograph was harmless error in light of the court’s comment at the time of rejection. Concur - McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellant. Plaintiff’s claim of negligence is that she was caused to fall because of a hole in the sidewalk. While the claim may be of doubtful merit and, under the circumstances of this case, the burden of proving liability on the part of the defendant a difficult one, such possibilities afford no reason to reject this appeal. Plaintiff is entitled to a fair and impartial opportunity to present her case. This she did not receive (Whitehead V. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 264 App. Div. 647; Kamen Soap Prods, v. Prusansky <fc Prusansky, 11 A D 2d 676; Buckley v. 2570 Broadway Corp., 12 A D 2d 473). Nor can we conclude that the exclusion of the proffered photograph was harmless error in light of the court’s comment at the time of rejection. Concur - McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Rosa v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 667, 253 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

22 A.D.2d 667 (Rosa v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related