Waterman v. Frost

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waterman v. Frost

251 A.D. 744, 295 N.Y.S. 914, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7346

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

DecidedMay 21, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 744 (Waterman v. Frost) 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

Waterman v. Frost, 251 A.D. 744, 295 N.Y.S. 914, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county in favor of plaintiffs, in actions for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Cecelia Waterman, and by her husband for loss [745]*745of services, reversed on the law, with costs, and complaints dismissed, with costs. Appeal from order dismissed. Plaintiff Cecelia Waterman was injured when a handrail or bannister on the stairway in defendant’s building became loose, causing her to lose her balance and fall when descending the stairway. There was no proof of faulty construction or that the handrail was defective or loose prior to the accident or that defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of the defective condition of the handrail. Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county in favor of plaintiffs, in actions for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Cecelia Waterman, and by her husband for loss [745]*745of services, reversed on the law, with costs, and complaints dismissed, with costs. Appeal from order dismissed. Plaintiff Cecelia Waterman was injured when a handrail or bannister on the stairway in defendant’s building became loose, causing her to lose her balance and fall when descending the stairway. There was no proof of faulty construction or that the handrail was defective or loose prior to the accident or that defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of the defective condition of the handrail. Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 744, 295 N.Y.S. 914, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-frost-nyappdiv-1937.