Teschke v. State

32 A.D.2d 978, 301 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1969·No. Claim No. 45719·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] restroom 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

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).

32 A.D.2d 978 (Teschke v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crawford v. City University
131 Misc. 2d 1013 (New York State Court of Claims, 1986)
Van Stry v. State
104 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)