Saracino v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 19 February 1969 |
| Citation | 23 N.Y.2d 938,246 N.E.2d 364,298 N.Y.S.2d 516 |
| Parties | , 246 N.E.2d 364 Frank SARACINO, an infant under the age of 14 years, by his Guardian ad Litem, Michael Saracino, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 30 A.D.2d 853, 293 N.Y.S.2d 29.
Harry Heller, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Stanley Buchsbaum, Bernard Burstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondents
Infant, who was 4 1/2 years old at time of accident, brought action by his guardian ad litem against the City of New York for injuries sustained in fall from steps of slide at city park. Recovery was predicated primarily on the theory of lack of supervision by park attendant and also on theory of alleged defective design of the slide.
There had been a rainfall which ceased shortly before the accident. The park attendant was in his office. The ladder of the slide was wet and slippery. The rails on each side of the ladder were about one inch in diameter. The infant had ascended near the top of the ladder when his right hand slipped off rail and one of his feet then slipped and he fell to the ground.
The Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County, Frank J. Pino, J., entered a judgment in favor of the City.
The Appellate Division entered an order July 15, 1968 which, by a divided court, affirmed the judgment of the Trial Term. The Appellate Division held that the infant failed to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence against the City, and that proof was insufficient to establish that the slide was of defective design, and that the City had no duty to provide direct management of the slide by the attendant.
The infant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, without costs. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosario v. New York City Transit Authority
...Realty Co., 173 A.D.2d 436, 570 N.Y.S.2d 61; Saracino v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 853, 854, 293 N.Y.S.2d 29, affd 23 N.Y.2d 938, 298 N.Y.S.2d 516, 246 N.E.2d 364). ...
-
Cone Mills Corp. v. Becker
...33 A.D.2d 920, 307 N.Y.S.2d 539; Saracino v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 853, 293 N.Y.S.2d 29, affd. without opinion, 23 N.Y.2d 938, 298 N.Y.S.2d 516, 246 N.E.2d 364; MacCormack v. Brooklyn and Queens Transit Corp., 266 App.Div. 735, 40 N.Y.S.2d ...
-
Rosenstock v. Rosenstock
...New York, 54 A.D.2d 804, 805, 388 N.Y.S.2d 39; Saracino v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 853, 854, 293 N.Y.S.2d 29, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 938, 298 N.Y.S.2d 516, 246 N.E.2d 364; Knapp v. Gougoen, 24 A.D.2d 911, 264 N.Y.S.2d The record reveals that plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay her own counse......
-
Nichter v. City of Buffalo
...v. City of New York, 267 N.Y. 204, 206, 196 N.E. 27; Saracino v. City of New York, 30 A.D.2d 853, 293 N.Y.S.2d 29, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 938, 298 N.Y.S.2d 516, 246 N.E.2d 364). Even if it be assumed that defendant failed in its duty to furnish general superintendence, there is no evidence that su......