Sherlock v. Rushmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherlock v. Rushmore

99 A.D. 598, 91 N.Y.S. 152

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 99 A.D. 598 (Sherlock v. Rushmore) 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

Sherlock v. Rushmore, 99 A.D. 598, 91 N.Y.S. 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J.:

Dr. J. P. Mooney was in possession of the premises at 118 Kent street, borough of Brooklyn, under a written lease on the 6th day of August, 1900. This lease made no provision for the landlord to make repairs, but the plaintiff, over the objection and exception of the defendant, was permitted to put in evidence a certain alleged [599]*599oral agreement on the part of the defendant Rushmore, as one of the executors and trustees under the will of Morris R. Williams, deceased, to make repairs. The plaintiff, a relative of Dr. Mooney’s wife, was engaged as housekeeper for Dr. Mooney, and in going to the cellar, fell and was injured because of an alleged defect in the stairs. The ground of negligence is not that the defendant, in making repairs, did the work in a negligent manner, but that he failed to make any repairs. The learned court at Trial Term submitted several questions to the jury, and on the coming in of a verdict for $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff, set the same aside- and entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits. The plaintiff appeals.

I am of opinion, assuming that the defendant made the agreement alleged, that the plaintiff has failed to make out a cause of action, and that the complaint was properly dismissed. (See Frank v. Mandel, 76 App. Div. 413, 416, 417, and authorities there cited; Stelz v. Van Dusen, 93 id. 358.)

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Woodward, J.:

Dr. J. P. Mooney was in possession of the premises at 118 Kent street, borough of Brooklyn, under a written lease on the 6th day of August, 1900. This lease made no provision for the landlord to make repairs, but the plaintiff, over the objection and exception of the defendant, was permitted to put in evidence a certain alleged [599]*599oral agreement on the part of the defendant Rushmore, as one of the executors and trustees under the will of Morris R. Williams, deceased, to make repairs. The plaintiff, a relative of Dr. Mooney’s wife, was engaged as housekeeper for Dr. Mooney, and in going to the cellar, fell and was injured because of an alleged defect in the stairs. The ground of negligence is not that the defendant, in making repairs, did the work in a negligent manner, but that he failed to make any repairs. The learned court at Trial Term submitted several questions to the jury, and on the coming in of a verdict for $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff, set the same aside- and entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits. The plaintiff appeals.

I am of opinion, assuming that the defendant made the agreement alleged, that the plaintiff has failed to make out a cause of action, and that the complaint was properly dismissed. (See Frank v. Mandel, 76 App. Div. 413, 416, 417, and authorities there cited; Stelz v. Van Dusen, 93 id. 358.)

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D. 598, 91 N.Y.S. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherlock-v-rushmore-nyappdiv-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack