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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 1970·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] facts, 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] facts, 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.

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

33 A.D.2d 901 (Stewart v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related