Wank v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wank v. Herman

2 A.D.2d 867, 156 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4137

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 867 (Wank v. Herman) 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

Wank v. Herman, 2 A.D.2d 867, 156 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by respondent’s intestate when he fell down a stairway in a multiple dwelling owned by appellants and in which said intestate was a tenant. The appeal is from a judgment directed in favor of respondent after trial by the court without a jury. The trial court found that lack of adequate light, of which appellants had actual notice, was the proximate cause of the accident. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. On this record, a question of fact was presented for determination by the trial court (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 37; Swain v. Gianone, 282 App. Div. 966). Respondent’s intestate had died between the time of his examination before trial by appellants and the trial. It was not error to permit respondent to read in evidence portions of such examination, which examination had not previously been offered in evidence "by appellants, the examining parties (Civ. Prac. Act, § 303; Berdell v. Berdell, 86 N. Y. 519; Kaufman v. Abramson & Co., 248 App. Div. 628). Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by respondent’s intestate when he fell down a stairway in a multiple dwelling owned by appellants and in which said intestate was a tenant. The appeal is from a judgment directed in favor of respondent after trial by the court without a jury. The trial court found that lack of adequate light, of which appellants had actual notice, was the proximate cause of the accident. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. On this record, a question of fact was presented for determination by the trial court (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 37; Swain v. Gianone, 282 App. Div. 966). Respondent’s intestate had died between the time of his examination before trial by appellants and the trial. It was not error to permit respondent to read in evidence portions of such examination, which examination had not previously been offered in evidence "by appellants, the examining parties (Civ. Prac. Act, § 303; Berdell v. Berdell, 86 N. Y. 519; Kaufman v. Abramson & Co., 248 App. Div. 628). Present — Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 867, 156 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wank-v-herman-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack