Swift v. City of New York

200 N.E. 681, 270 N.Y. 162, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1526
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 3, 1936·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

*165 Per Curiam.

There is no evidence that defendant was chargeable with notice of special danger to children from existing conditions. (Johnson v. City of New York, 208 N. Y. 77; McDonald v. Degnon-McLean Cont. Co., 124 App. Div. 824; affd., 205 N. Y. 502.) The ordinance was intended for the protection of persons traveling on the highway in the usual manner, and even, if applicable to the facts in this case, its violation is not shown to have been the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. No causal connection is shown.

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur. Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Swift v. City of New York, 200 N.E. 681, 270 N.Y. 162, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1526 (N.Y. 1936).

200 N.E. 681 (Swift v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MacKinnon v. Hendrickson Bros.
22 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Shemin v. City of New York
6 A.D.2d 668 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Salsbury v. United Parcel Service Inc.
203 Misc. 1008 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1953)
Steeves v. City of Rochester
56 N.E.2d 735 (New York Court of Appeals, 1944)
Bauman v. Be-Jel Realty Corp.
171 Misc. 845 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)