Schuss v. La Brug Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schuss v. La Brug Holding Corp.

265 A.D. 1058, 39 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D. 1058 (Schuss v. La Brug Holding 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

Schuss v. La Brug Holding Corp., 265 A.D. 1058, 39 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

[1059]*1059No opinion. Cars-well, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Close, P. J., and Taylor, J., concur for dismissal of the appeal from the original order but dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and resettled order, to deny the motion, and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: In our opinion there was evidence to support the finding, implicit in the jury’s verdict, that the plaintiff fell upon a piece of ice which had been loosened, but not removed, from the sidewalk by the defendant’s employee, in the process of cleaning the walk. A condition was thus created by defendant more dangerous to passers-by than if the ice had remained adherent to the sidewalk. The evidence discloses, and the jury was warranted in finding, therefore, that the defendant undertook to clean the sidewalk and did so negligently, with resulting injury to the plaintiff. (Cf. Nelson v. Schultz, 170 Misc. 681.)

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

[1059]*1059No opinion. Cars-well, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Close, P. J., and Taylor, J., concur for dismissal of the appeal from the original order but dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and resettled order, to deny the motion, and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: In our opinion there was evidence to support the finding, implicit in the jury’s verdict, that the plaintiff fell upon a piece of ice which had been loosened, but not removed, from the sidewalk by the defendant’s employee, in the process of cleaning the walk. A condition was thus created by defendant more dangerous to passers-by than if the ice had remained adherent to the sidewalk. The evidence discloses, and the jury was warranted in finding, therefore, that the defendant undertook to clean the sidewalk and did so negligently, with resulting injury to the plaintiff. (Cf. Nelson v. Schultz, 170 Misc. 681.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D. 1058, 39 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuss-v-la-brug-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack