Spector v. Puglisi

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Spector v. Puglisi

9 Misc. 2d 250, 172 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2305

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 Misc. 2d 250 (Spector v. Puglisi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spector v. Puglisi, 9 Misc. 2d 250, 172 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff seeks a recovery from the owner of real property for his alleged negligence in failing to clean the public sidewalk in front of his property after receiving notice that strawberries and vegetable leaves had been strewn thereon. It clearly appears from the evidence that this condition was created by someone other than defendant owner. Absent any proof to connect this defendant with the person who was initially responsible for such condition, plaintiff failed to establish any basis for liability herein (Frank v. Muller, 200 App. Div. 639, affd. 235 N. Y. 540). The duty to clean the sidewalk imposed on an owner of real property by section 755 (3)-2.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York is enforcible only at the instance of the city (City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N. Y. 405; Troeger v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 154 Misc. 537).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law, with costs to defendant-appellant and complaint dismissed with costs.

Pette, Habt and Di Gtovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff seeks a recovery from the owner of real property for his alleged negligence in failing to clean the public sidewalk in front of his property after receiving notice that strawberries and vegetable leaves had been strewn thereon. It clearly appears from the evidence that this condition was created by someone other than defendant owner. Absent any proof to connect this defendant with the person who was initially responsible for such condition, plaintiff failed to establish any basis for liability herein (Frank v. Muller, 200 App. Div. 639, affd. 235 N. Y. 540). The duty to clean the sidewalk imposed on an owner of real property by section 755 (3)-2.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York is enforcible only at the instance of the city (City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N. Y. 405; Troeger v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 154 Misc. 537).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law, with costs to defendant-appellant and complaint dismissed with costs.

Pette, Habt and Di Gtovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Misc. 2d 250, 172 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spector-v-puglisi-nyappterm-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack