Schweitzer v. Mindlin
| Decision Date | 11 May 1928 |
| Citation | 248 N.Y. 560,162 N.E. 524 |
| Parties | SCHWEITZER v. MINDLIN. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Samuel B. Schweitzer against Max Mindlin. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (222 App. Div. 738, 226 N. Y. S. 903), affirming an order of the Special Term denying motion for dismissal of complaint, defendant appeals by permission.
Reversed, and defendant's motion for judgment granted, and question certified answered.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department entered December 23, 1927, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. The complaint alleged that while plaintiff was riding as a passenger in defendant's automobile, the car was negligently driven past an arsenal where explosives were stored and plaintiff was injured by an explosion which occurred in said arsenal.
The following question was certified: ‘Does the complaint herein state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?’
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Lyman A. Spalding, Arthur McCausland, and William J. Nolan, all of New York City, for appellant.
George Eilperin and Habeeb Abokair, both of Brooklyn, for respondent.
Order of Appellate Division and that of Special Term reversed, and defendant's motion for judgment granted, with costs in all courts. Question certified answered in the negative. Held that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that it fails to state any facts from which an inference of negligence is possible.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heisler v. State
...in which claimant was injured and how the defendant was negligent were stated or can be reasonably inferred (see, Schweitzer v. Mindlin, 248 N.Y. 560, 561, 162 N.E. 524). The State also argues that claimants failed to allege that the State of New York owned, leased or otherwise controlled t......
-
Maldonado v. State, # 2010-015-114
...state a negligence cause of action (Patterson v State of New York, 54 AD2d 147 [4th Dept 1976], affirmed 45 NY2d 885 [1978]; Schweitzer v Mindlin, 248 NY 560 [1928]; Passero v State of New York, Ct Cl, April 4, 2000, McNamara, J., claim No. 100544, UID No. 2000-011-514). Defendant contends ......