Stewart v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. New York City Housing Authority

33 A.D.2d 901, 307 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5633

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 901 (Stewart v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Stewart v. New York City Housing Authority, 33 A.D.2d 901, 307 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on January 30, 1969, resolving the issue of negligence in favor of plaintiffs, after a jury trial, unanimously reversed on the law and on the [902]*902facts, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint dismissed. The infant plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a convex-shaped playground monkey-bar apparatus. Plaintiffs did not claim lack of adequate supervision by defendant or that the apparatus itself was unsafe# and there was no competent proof adduced that the asphalt surface beneath the apparatus, upon which the infant plaintiff fell, was improperly constructed or maintained or that it constituted an unsafe and dangerous condition for which defendant should be cast in damages. (McGill v. 39 Casino St. Corp., 16 A D 2d 832.) Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony was clearly inadequate and did not constitute such requisite competent proof as would justify distinguishing the last cited case from the case at bar. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on January 30, 1969, resolving the issue of negligence in favor of plaintiffs, after a jury trial, unanimously reversed on the law and on the [902]*902facts, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint dismissed. The infant plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a convex-shaped playground monkey-bar apparatus. Plaintiffs did not claim lack of adequate supervision by defendant or that the apparatus itself was unsafe# and there was no competent proof adduced that the asphalt surface beneath the apparatus, upon which the infant plaintiff fell, was improperly constructed or maintained or that it constituted an unsafe and dangerous condition for which defendant should be cast in damages. (McGill v. 39 Casino St. Corp., 16 A D 2d 832.) Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony was clearly inadequate and did not constitute such requisite competent proof as would justify distinguishing the last cited case from the case at bar. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Capozzoli, McGivern, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 901, 307 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack