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

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 667 (Rosa 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 667, 253 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosa-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack