Valkenburg v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valkenburg v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.

24 A.D.2d 1067, 265 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2632

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1067 (Valkenburg v. Lawrence Warehouse Co.) 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

Valkenburg v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 24 A.D.2d 1067, 265 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Trial Term which granted a motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s ease to dismiss the complaint in a personal injury negligence action. There was no proof that the defendant and third-party plaintiff was in occupation or control of the premises upon which the injury occurred nor was there any proof that defendant participated in the creation or continuance of the dangerous condition. Parol evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate a mistake in the nature of a scrivener’s error. Consequently the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff’s proof failed to establish a prima facie cause of action upon any of the theories pleaded in the complaint. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Trial Term which granted a motion made at the close of the plaintiff’s ease to dismiss the complaint in a personal injury negligence action. There was no proof that the defendant and third-party plaintiff was in occupation or control of the premises upon which the injury occurred nor was there any proof that defendant participated in the creation or continuance of the dangerous condition. Parol evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate a mistake in the nature of a scrivener’s error. Consequently the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff’s proof failed to establish a prima facie cause of action upon any of the theories pleaded in the complaint. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1067, 265 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valkenburg-v-lawrence-warehouse-co-nyappdiv-1965.