Steubing v. Hooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steubing v. Hooper

272 A.D.2d 865

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

DecidedMay 20, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 865 (Steubing v. Hooper) 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

Steubing v. Hooper, 272 A.D.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum,: The proof established without question that to the knowledge of the defendant the dog was in and out of the store and in the narrow aisles thereof on many occasions and the jury was justified in finding that that was a source of danger tb customers which the defendant might reasonably anticipate. On the question of negligence and contributory negligence the cases cited by the respondent do not apply. All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in a negligence action. The order grants defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict [866]*866of the jury in favor of plaintiff and directs a verdict in favor of defendant.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum,: The proof established without question that to the knowledge of the defendant the dog was in and out of the store and in the narrow aisles thereof on many occasions and the jury was justified in finding that that was a source of danger tb customers which the defendant might reasonably anticipate. On the question of negligence and contributory negligence the cases cited by the respondent do not apply. All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in a negligence action. The order grants defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict [866]*866of the jury in favor of plaintiff and directs a verdict in favor of defendant.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steubing-v-hooper-nyappdiv-1947.