Sacks v. Sunset Hill Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sacks v. Sunset Hill Realty Corp.

250 A.D. 778, 294 N.Y.S. 127, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8967

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 778 (Sacks v. Sunset Hill Realty Corp.) 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

Sacks v. Sunset Hill Realty Corp., 250 A.D. 778, 294 N.Y.S. 127, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

The respondent, owner of a twenty-six-room dwelling house, leased the premises to one Slepion, who occupied it throughout the year and rented rooms therein during the summer. One of the rooms was rented to plaintiff Rose Sacks. Late one evening, as she was descending steps that led to the street, her left foot caught in a hole in one of the steps and [779]*779she was injured. She brought this action for damages against the owner and the lessee, alleging that the condition constituted a nuisance, and her husband joined with her, asking damages for loss of services. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the ease upon the ground that the house was not a place where business was carried on with the public. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Taylor, J., dissent and vote for reversal on the ground that the premises were rented for a public use, and at the time of the letting part of the property was, to the defendant owner’s knowledge, in a condition dangerous to persons using the premises.

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

The respondent, owner of a twenty-six-room dwelling house, leased the premises to one Slepion, who occupied it throughout the year and rented rooms therein during the summer. One of the rooms was rented to plaintiff Rose Sacks. Late one evening, as she was descending steps that led to the street, her left foot caught in a hole in one of the steps and [779]*779she was injured. She brought this action for damages against the owner and the lessee, alleging that the condition constituted a nuisance, and her husband joined with her, asking damages for loss of services. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the ease upon the ground that the house was not a place where business was carried on with the public. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Taylor, J., dissent and vote for reversal on the ground that the premises were rented for a public use, and at the time of the letting part of the property was, to the defendant owner’s knowledge, in a condition dangerous to persons using the premises.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 778, 294 N.Y.S. 127, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacks-v-sunset-hill-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1937.