Weinfeld v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinfeld v. Kaplan

256 A.D. 1089, 12 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6249

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

DecidedApril 10, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1089 (Weinfeld v. Kaplan) 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

Weinfeld v. Kaplan, 256 A.D. 1089, 12 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in falling through an opening in the floor of a store where he was working. The complaint was dismissed as to both defendants at the close of plaintiff’s case. As to respondent Von Glahn, judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ. As to respondent Kaplan, judgment affirmed, with costs. Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent, vote to reverse and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In view of the dismissal of the complaint, giving to plaintiff the most favorable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony, the conclusion is warranted that plaintiff was in Kaplan’s employment. Kaplan knew of the dangerous condition that existed in the store and it was his duty to warn plaintiff thereof.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in falling through an opening in the floor of a store where he was working. The complaint was dismissed as to both defendants at the close of plaintiff’s case. As to respondent Von Glahn, judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ. As to respondent Kaplan, judgment affirmed, with costs. Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., and Hagarty, J., dissent, vote to reverse and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In view of the dismissal of the complaint, giving to plaintiff the most favorable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony, the conclusion is warranted that plaintiff was in Kaplan’s employment. Kaplan knew of the dangerous condition that existed in the store and it was his duty to warn plaintiff thereof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1089, 12 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinfeld-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1939.