Teschke v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teschke v. State

32 A.D.2d 978, 301 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1969

DocketClaim No. 45719

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 978 (Teschke v. State) 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

Teschke v. State, 32 A.D.2d 978, 301 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered March 7, 1968 awarding damages to the claimants. The finding of the trial court that the water in the area of the [979]*979restroom where claimant Marion Tesehke fell was the result of being tracked in by patrons following a “downpour of rain” which occurred just prior to the accident mandates the conclusion that the State had not failed to exercise reasonable care. (See Pascual v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 518; Kelly v. State of New York, 29 A D 2d 904.) In the absence of notice, either actual or constructive, claimants must prove that the State created the hazardous condition and this the claimant failed to show. (See Conroy v. Saratoga Springs Auth., 259 App. Div. 365, 367, affd. 284 N. Y. 723; Antenen v. New York Tel. Co., 271 N. Y. 558; Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N. Y. 107.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and claim dismissed without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims entered March 7, 1968 awarding damages to the claimants. The finding of the trial court that the water in the area of the [979]*979restroom where claimant Marion Tesehke fell was the result of being tracked in by patrons following a “downpour of rain” which occurred just prior to the accident mandates the conclusion that the State had not failed to exercise reasonable care. (See Pascual v. State of New York, 23 A D 2d 518; Kelly v. State of New York, 29 A D 2d 904.) In the absence of notice, either actual or constructive, claimants must prove that the State created the hazardous condition and this the claimant failed to show. (See Conroy v. Saratoga Springs Auth., 259 App. Div. 365, 367, affd. 284 N. Y. 723; Antenen v. New York Tel. Co., 271 N. Y. 558; Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N. Y. 107.) Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and claim dismissed without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 978, 301 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teschke-v-state-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack