Rubin v. Maas

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. Maas

148 N.Y.S. 179

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 N.Y.S. 179 (Rubin v. Maas) 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

Rubin v. Maas, 148 N.Y.S. 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Defendant was the lessee of a building. Plaintiff, learning that her child was playing in the cellar of the building, descended some steps leading from the street to bring the child back. In doing so she stepped into a hole in one of the steps and was injured. As plaintiff was a mere trespasser, and as it was not shown that even gratuitous permission to enter on the premises had been given by the defendant, defendant owed her no obligation whatsoever. See Fox v. Warner, etc., Co., 204 N. Y. 240, 97 N. E. 497, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 395, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 842. Under the circumstances of this case the recovery was unwarranted.

The attempt to sustain the, judgment because of the supposed violation of section 194 of the Code of City Ordinances must fail, because the record is devoid of any proof that the flight of stairs referred to comes within the terms of the ordinance.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.. All concur..

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

BIJUR, J.

Defendant was the lessee of a building. Plaintiff, learning that her child was playing in the cellar of the building, descended some steps leading from the street to bring the child back. In doing so she stepped into a hole in one of the steps and was injured. As plaintiff was a mere trespasser, and as it was not shown that even gratuitous permission to enter on the premises had been given by the defendant, defendant owed her no obligation whatsoever. See Fox v. Warner, etc., Co., 204 N. Y. 240, 97 N. E. 497, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 395, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 842. Under the circumstances of this case the recovery was unwarranted.

The attempt to sustain the, judgment because of the supposed violation of section 194 of the Code of City Ordinances must fail, because the record is devoid of any proof that the flight of stairs referred to comes within the terms of the ordinance.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.. All concur..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.Y.S. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-maas-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack