Gramm v. State
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 291 N.Y.S.2d 7,21 N.Y.2d 1025,238 N.E.2d 498 |
| Parties | , 238 N.E.2d 498 Dorothy GRAMM, Respondent, v. The STATE of New York, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1968 |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 28 A.D.2d 787, 281 N.Y.S.2d 235.
Benjamin Liebov, New York City (Michael R. Silberstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Claimant brought action against the State for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on stairway in building maintained by the State to house unemployment insurance offices of the Department of Labor. It was not disputed that claimant was a business visitor or invitee to whom the State owed the duty of maintaining the terrazzo stairway in reasonably safe condition. The claimant testified that on mounting the stairway she observed that the stairs were worn, wet, dirty, and littered with cigarette butts and paper wrappings, and other witnesses testified that the steps were wet and littered. The claimant, after completing her business and while descending the stairs, slipped and fell.
The Court of Claims entered judgment for the claimant, and the State appealed.
The Appellate Division entered an order July 5, 1967 which affirmed, by a divided court, the judgment of the Court of Claims. Reynolds and Herlihy, JJ., dissented. The Appellate Division held that evidence sustained finding of Court of Claims that condition of stairway was result of State's negligence in failure to keep stairway in safe condition, and that the dangerous condition of the stairway was the proximate cause of the fall of the claimant, so as to render the State liable for claimant's injuries, though claimant did not prove precise condition of particular step on which she fell.
The State appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, with costs, on the majority opinion at the Appellate Division.
All concur except SCILEPPI and JASEN, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the claim on the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olejniczak v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 96-CV-81A.
...v. Marriott Corp., supra, 1995 WL 694614, at *4 (citing Gramm v. State, 28 A.D.2d 787, 281 N.Y.S.2d 235, 237 (3rd Dept.1967), aff'd, 21 N.Y.2d 1025, 291 N.Y.S.2d 7, 238 N.E.2d 498 (1968)). Rather, "[c]ircumstantial evidence or common knowledge may provide a basis from which the causal seque......
-
McHale v. Westcott, Civ. A. No. 93-CV-915.
...... Mrs. McHale commenced a personal injury action on May 20, 1993, against defendant Westcott in New York State Supreme Court, Tompkins County. After receiving a third-party summons and complaint from Westcott on July 6, 1993, the government removed the action ...New York courts do not require proof of "the precise condition of the particular step upon which plaintiff fell." Gramm v. New York, 28 A.D.2d 787, 281 N.Y.S.2d 235, 237 (3d Dep't 1967), aff'd, 21 N.Y.2d 1025, 291 N.Y.S.2d 7, 238 N.E.2d 498 (1968). Rather, proximate ......
-
Weisenthal v. Pickman
...... Such a rule would not only be contrary to logic and common sense, it would also be contrary to express statements made by the courts in Gramm v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 787, 281 N.Y.S.2d 235, affd. 21 N.Y.2d 1025, 291 N.Y.S.2d 7, 238 N.E.2d 498 on majority opn. at App.Div. and Kelsey ......
-
Babich v. R.G.T. Rest. Corp.
...New York City Tr. Auth., 269 A.D.2d 142, 703 N.Y.S.2d 4 [2000]; Gramm v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 787, 281 N.Y.S.2d 235 [1967], affd. 21 N.Y.2d 1025, 291 N.Y.S.2d 7, 238 N.E.2d 498 [1968] ). All concur except FREEDMAN, J. who dissents in a memorandum as follows:906 N.Y.S.2d 530 FREEDMAN......