Sparks v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sparks v. City of New York

31 A.D.2d 660, 296 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2548

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 660 (Sparks v. City of New York) 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

Sparks v. City of New York, 31 A.D.2d 660, 296 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 7, 1968, as is in favor of defendant City of New York against plaintiff upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict in favor of defendants. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted as between plaintiff and the City of New York, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered. We are of the opinion that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to plaintiff’s contributory negligence and that it was error to direct a verdict in respondent’s favor. Whalen v. Citizens’ Gas Light Co. (151 N. Y. 70) is not to the contrary. Woolfolk v. Eisenberg (215 N. Y. S. 2d 941) and Venia v. Bartel (11 Misc 2d 501) are not controlling, since the accidente [661]*661therein did not occur on a public sidewalk, upon which a pedestrian may walk, indulging in a presumption that it is safe. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 7, 1968, as is in favor of defendant City of New York against plaintiff upon the trial court’s direction of a verdict in favor of defendants. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and new trial granted as between plaintiff and the City of New York, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered. We are of the opinion that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to plaintiff’s contributory negligence and that it was error to direct a verdict in respondent’s favor. Whalen v. Citizens’ Gas Light Co. (151 N. Y. 70) is not to the contrary. Woolfolk v. Eisenberg (215 N. Y. S. 2d 941) and Venia v. Bartel (11 Misc 2d 501) are not controlling, since the accidente [661]*661therein did not occur on a public sidewalk, upon which a pedestrian may walk, indulging in a presumption that it is safe. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 660, 296 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack