Shines v. W. & Y. Realty Corp.

259 A.D. 596, 20 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6214
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 31, 1940·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon the facts in this case it was error to hold as a matter of law that defendant was not negligent. The issue was one of fact for the jury. By their verdict in favor of plaintiff the jury necessarily found that defendant reasonably could have [597]*597foreseen that a person cleaning the outside of the windows in the manner described by plaintiff would be given a sense of security by the presence of the balcony, and that its use, as testified to by plaintiff, should have been anticipated. The evidence was sufficient to justify such a finding. The verdict, therefore, should not have been disturbed.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the verdict reinstated.

Present ■ — ■ Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the verdict reinstated.

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

Shines v. W. & Y. Realty Corp., 259 A.D. 596, 20 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

259 A.D. 596 (Shines v. W. & Y. Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Benjamin v. Jonathan Woodner Co.
22 A.D.2d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Italiano v. Jeffrey Garden Apts. Section II, Inc.
3 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)