Zlotovsky v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Zlotovsky v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.

59 N.Y. St. Rep. 581

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 7, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 581 (Zlotovsky v. Twenty-Third Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City 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 Street Railway Co., 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 581 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 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 fourteen years and ten 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, 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 fourteen years and ten 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, costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.Y. St. Rep. 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zlotovsky-v-twenty-third-street-railway-co-nysuperctnyc-1894.