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

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

DecidedApril 7, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 771 (Swartz v. Sixty Wall Tower, Inc.) 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

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

Pincite

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.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swartz-v-sixty-wall-tower-inc-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack