Wisnisky v. Becker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wisnisky v. Becker

33 A.D.2d 650, 305 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 650 (Wisnisky v. Becker) 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

Wisnisky v. Becker, 33 A.D.2d 650, 305 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed ón the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff fell while descending some steps of a building owned by defendant, sustaining serious injuries. Upon all the evidence, the jury was entitled to conclude that defendant had knowledge or notice of the existence of certain pigeon droppings on the top step. However, the finding of the jury, implicit in its verdict that plaintiff was caused to fall because of the presence of these droppings is against the weight of the credible evidence. We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from certain parts of judgment of Onondaga Trial Term in negligence action.) Present — ■ Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed ón the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiff fell while descending some steps of a building owned by defendant, sustaining serious injuries. Upon all the evidence, the jury was entitled to conclude that defendant had knowledge or notice of the existence of certain pigeon droppings on the top step. However, the finding of the jury, implicit in its verdict that plaintiff was caused to fall because of the presence of these droppings is against the weight of the credible evidence. We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from certain parts of judgment of Onondaga Trial Term in negligence action.) Present — ■ Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 650, 305 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisnisky-v-becker-nyappdiv-1969.