Magid v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 02 June 1932 |
| Citation | 259 N.Y. 618,182 N.E. 206 |
| Parties | Morris MAGID, Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (234 App. Div. 38, 254 N. Y. S. 236), entered December 22, 1931, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The judgment was affirmed unanimously as against the defendant Garhill Realty Corporation, and by a divided court as against the defendant the city of New York. The appeal by the realty corporation was by leave of the Court of Appeals. The action was to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendants. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, in coming out of a building at 218 Duane street in the city of New York, owned by the defendant realty corporation, and stepping upon a board sidewalk or platform, was injured by reason of the breaking of part of the planking. The complaint further alleged that the Code of Ordinances of the City of New York (sections 180, 181, and 183 of article 15 of chapter 23) provided that the materials and construction of sidewalks shall be prescribed by the borough president; that the owner, lessee, or occupant at his charge and expense shall keep and maintain in good repair the sidewalks in front of the building, and, in case he shall fail to repair or re-lay said sidewalk, the borough president is authorized and required to repair it; that no board or plank walk shal be constructed or laid down in any street without the written permission of the borough president; and that the sidewalk in question had become rotten, decayed, and otherwise insufficient to support the pedestrian traffic which ordinarily passed over it. The owner contended that it had no notice, either actual orconstructive, of any defect in the platform or sidewalk. The city, in addition to this contention, also contended that plaintiff had failed to prove that the platform was used or considered as a part of the sidewalk, and that plaintiff's own testimony established that he was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.
Arthur J. W. Hilly, Corporation Counsel, of New York City (Milton I. Hauser, Louis Diamant, and J. Joseph Lilly, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant City of New York.
Frank M. Wilcox and Clarence E. Mellen, both of New York City, for appellant Garhill Realty Corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Hostetter
... ... court: Callaway v. Newman Mercantile Co., 321 Mo ... 766; Baustian v. Young and City of St. Louis, 152 ... Mo. 317; Russell v. Sincoe Realty Co., 293 Mo. 428 ... (2) The ... J. Law 156, 125 A. 103; Phillips ... Petroleum Co. v. Childress, 78 F.2d 861; Magid v ... New York, 234 A.D. 38, 254 N.Y.S. 236, affirmed in 259 ... N.Y. 618, 182 N.E. 206; Green ... ...
-
State ex rel. Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Hostetter
...103; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Childress, 78 Fed. (2d) 861; Magid v. New York, 234 App. Div. 38, 254 N.Y. Supp. 236, affirmed in 259 N.Y. 618, 182 N.E. 206; Green v. Chotin, 159 So. 760; Melvin v. Kane, 265 S.W. 1061, affirmed in 277 S.W. 374; Mitchell v. Thomas, 91 Mont. 370, 8 Pac. (2d) 6......
-
Batton v. Elghanayan
...such care (see Todd v. City of Troy, 61 N.Y. 506, 509; Magid v. City of New York, 234 App.Div. 38, 42, 254 N.Y.S. 236, 240, affd. 259 N.Y. 618, 182 N.E. 206; 2 B Warren's Negligence, Landlord and Tenant, § 6.01; 1 Shearman and Redfield, Negligence (rev.ed.), pp. 46-47; cf. MacArthur v. Coxo......
-
Rhabb v. New York City Housing Authority
...and Redfield, Negligence (Rev ed.), § 21, pp. 46--47; Magid v. City of New York, 234 App.Div. 38, 42, 254 N.Y.S. 236, 240, affd., 259 N.Y. 618, 182 N.E. 206). Upon defendant's motion made at the close of plaintiffs' case, the test was whether there was any rational basis on which a jury cou......