Scro v. Imperial Appliance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scro v. Imperial Appliance Corp.

10 A.D.2d 840, 199 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10460

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

DecidedApril 26, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 840 (Scro v. Imperial Appliance 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

Scro v. Imperial Appliance Corp., 10 A.D.2d 840, 199 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment so far as appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. As the trial court properly held, plaintiff was at most a licensee on appellant’s property. Hence, the only duty owed to plaintiff was to abstain from inflicting intentional, willful or wanton injury. (Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181; Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N. Y. 154, 158-159; Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 6 N Y 2d 470, 474.) Even assuming that the alleged slamming of the door was the proximate and foreseeable cause of the glass falling some minutes later, that did not constitute such an intentional or willful act as to make appellant liable to a mere licensee. Moreover, since the plaintiff was aware of the broken glass on the door and saw the man slam the door, her sitting down on the step in front of the door immediately thereafter made her guilty of contributory negligence. In view of the foregoing, it becomes unnecessary to consider the claimed error in permitting plaintiff to conform the pleadings to the proof whereby, as appellant urges, the theory of recovery was completely changed from that set forth in the pleadings. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

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

Judgment so far as appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. As the trial court properly held, plaintiff was at most a licensee on appellant’s property. Hence, the only duty owed to plaintiff was to abstain from inflicting intentional, willful or wanton injury. (Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181; Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N. Y. 154, 158-159; Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 6 N Y 2d 470, 474.) Even assuming that the alleged slamming of the door was the proximate and foreseeable cause of the glass falling some minutes later, that did not constitute such an intentional or willful act as to make appellant liable to a mere licensee. Moreover, since the plaintiff was aware of the broken glass on the door and saw the man slam the door, her sitting down on the step in front of the door immediately thereafter made her guilty of contributory negligence. In view of the foregoing, it becomes unnecessary to consider the claimed error in permitting plaintiff to conform the pleadings to the proof whereby, as appellant urges, the theory of recovery was completely changed from that set forth in the pleadings. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 840, 199 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scro-v-imperial-appliance-corp-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack