Swartz v. Sixty Wall Tower, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swartz v. Sixty Wall Tower, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 771

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 1947·Published

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when, upon undertaking to deliver a telegram to an office in the defendant’s building, she was cut by breaking glass in the office door. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., concurs for reversal but dissents as to granting a new trial and votes to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: There was no proof of a defective condition or of such a condition of danger as would warrant a finding of negligence on the part of defendant. (McCabe v. Mackay, 253 N. Y. 440.) Moreover, plaintiff did not establish that there was any causal relation between the claimed dimness of light and the accident. (Dickerson v. Long Island R. R. Co., 266 App. Div. 852; White v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 N. Y. 131.)

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when, upon undertaking to deliver a telegram to an office in the defendant’s building, she was cut by breaking glass in the office door. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Carswell, Acting P. J., Adel, Nolan and Sneed, JJ., concur; Johnston, J., concurs for reversal but dissents as to granting a new trial and votes to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: There was no proof of a defective condition or of such a condition of danger as would warrant a finding of negligence on the part of defendant. (McCabe v. Mackay, 253 N. Y. 440.) Moreover, plaintiff did not establish that there was any causal relation between the claimed dimness of light and the accident. (Dickerson v. Long Island R. R. Co., 266 App. Div. 852; White v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 N. Y. 131.)

Swartz v. Sixty Wall Tower, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 771 (Swartz v. Sixty Wall Tower, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related