Watts v. Fitzsimmons
This text of 136 Misc. 647 (Watts v. Fitzsimmons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The case was tried below upon the theory that the defendant could be held hable to the plaintiff in tort for breach [648]*648of an alleged contractual obligation to make repairs. This was error. (Boden v. Scholtz, 101 App. Div. 1; Schick v. Fleischhauer, 26 id. 210; Stelz v. Van Dusen, 93 id. 358.) As to the point made by respondent that the staircase was reserved for the common use of both tenants it suffices to state that the evidence was to the contrary, and that the case was not submitted to the jury upon that theory.
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.
All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Frankenthaler, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
136 Misc. 647, 241 N.Y.S. 688, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-fitzsimmons-nyappterm-1930.