Zlotovsky v. Twenty-third St. Railway Co.

Superior Court of New York

Zlotovsky v. Twenty-third St. Railway Co.

28 N.Y.S. 661, 8 Misc. 463

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 7, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 661 (Zlotovsky v. Twenty-third St. Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zlotovsky v. Twenty-third St. Railway Co., 28 N.Y.S. 661, 8 Misc. 463 (superctny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries received in being run down by one of defendant’s cars. At the time of the injury the plaintiff was about 14 years and 10 months of age, and a messenger boy in the employ of the American District Telegraph Company. He was clearly sui juris. His complaint was dismissed at the trial because it appeared affirmatively that he had been guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury. The learned trial judge, on making this ruling, stated his reasons at length for holding as he did, and they were justified by the state of the evidence. It is not necessary to restate them here. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries received in being run down by one of defendant’s cars. At the time of the injury the plaintiff was about 14 years and 10 months of age, and a messenger boy in the employ of the American District Telegraph Company. He was clearly sui juris. His complaint was dismissed at the trial because it appeared affirmatively that he had been guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury. The learned trial judge, on making this ruling, stated his reasons at length for holding as he did, and they were justified by the state of the evidence. It is not necessary to restate them here. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 661, 8 Misc. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zlotovsky-v-twenty-third-st-railway-co-superctny-1894.