Ziehm ex rel. Ziehm v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ziehm ex rel. Ziehm v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

25 A.D.2d 934, 270 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263

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

DecidedMay 12, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 934 (Ziehm ex rel. Ziehm v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.) 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

Ziehm ex rel. Ziehm v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 25 A.D.2d 934, 270 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of these appeals to any party, and complaints dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: There were presented no issues of material fact. The infant plaintiff, while upon the railroad right-of-way and attempting to board the Chesapeake and Ohio train, was a trespasser. There was no duty owed to him by either defendant that was violated. (Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 6 N Y 2d 470; [935]*935Scholl v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 3 N Y 2d 989; Van Houten v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 286 App. Div. 875, affd. 2 N Y 2d 739; Van Houten v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 279 App. Div. 1099; Ralff v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 266 App. Div. 794, affd. 292 N. Y. 656; Gleason v. Central New England Ry. Co., 261 N. Y. 333; Penal Law, § 1990, subd. 4; Railroad Law, § 83.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying- defendants’ motions for summary judgment to dismiss complaints.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of these appeals to any party, and complaints dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: There were presented no issues of material fact. The infant plaintiff, while upon the railroad right-of-way and attempting to board the Chesapeake and Ohio train, was a trespasser. There was no duty owed to him by either defendant that was violated. (Lo Casto v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 6 N Y 2d 470; [935]*935Scholl v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 3 N Y 2d 989; Van Houten v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 286 App. Div. 875, affd. 2 N Y 2d 739; Van Houten v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 279 App. Div. 1099; Ralff v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 266 App. Div. 794, affd. 292 N. Y. 656; Gleason v. Central New England Ry. Co., 261 N. Y. 333; Penal Law, § 1990, subd. 4; Railroad Law, § 83.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying- defendants’ motions for summary judgment to dismiss complaints.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 934, 270 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziehm-ex-rel-ziehm-v-chesapeake-ohio-railway-co-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack