Weinstein v. R. H. Macy & Co.
This text of 163 Misc. 61 (Weinstein v. R. H. Macy & Co.) 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
Plaintiff, a customer in defendant’s department store, was injured while ascending an ordinary stairway when she was pushed by other customers constituting part of a large crowd. We find no evidence of defendant’s negligence in this case. There was no proof of notice that the stairway in question was continually [62]*62crowded or any other proof to show the necessity for guards at the point in question. The case of Newberg v. Macy & Co., Inc. (App. Term, 1st Dept., Jan. 1930, N. Y. L. J. Feb. 19, 1930, p. 2540; affd., 228 App. Div. 804) is distinguishable in that there was proof of continual crowding at the point of the accident which was the entrance to a mechanical escalator. At an ordinary stairway, at least in the absence of proof of the continual presence of crowds creating a dangerous condition there, it is not negligence for a storekeeper to fail to have guards to regulate customers.
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.
All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
163 Misc. 61, 296 N.Y.S. 341, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-r-h-macy-co-nyappterm-1937.