Opinion
286 A.D. 929 142 N.Y.S.2d 606 Rose LOMBARDO, Respondent, v. John GRANITO, d/b/a Dixie Flower Shop, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Third Department July 7, 1955.
James F. Dalton, Albany, for appellant.
Nathan H. Richman, Albany, for respondent.
Before BERGAN, J. P., and COON, HALPERN, IMRIE and ZELLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Cross appeals from an order and judgment of Albany County Court. Following a jury trial in Albany City Court, resulting in a verdict of $500 in favor of plaintiff, the court, on motion of defendant, rendered judgment of nonsuit and dismissal of her complaint and denied her motion to set the verdict aside on the ground of inadequacy and for a new trial. On appeal to the County Court the jury's verdict was reinstated and the City Court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial was affirmed.
Plaintiff sought damages for injuries alleged to have resulted from a fall on January 3, 1952, on the sidewalk in front of property leased by and wholly under the control of defendant at the corner of Madison Avenue and Trinity Place in the City of Albany. On both street fronts of the building are bay or display windows, capped by cornices about twenty inches wide sloping downward two to three inches and projecting several inches beyond the respective windows.
On the early morning of the day of the accident plaintiff was walking down Madison Avenue on the way to her employment. She contends that in front of the defendant's property she slipped on ice covered by freshly fallen snow.
The trial court charged the jury that the question for its determination was whether the cornice or coping was of such nature that, as soon as there was melting on it, water would drip to the sidewalk, freeze and cause danger to passers-by. The issue was one of fact for the jury. There was proof from which it could be found that plaintiff was walking and fell in the area where water dripping from the cornice to the sidewalk could result in ice. There was evidence that air vents carrying warm air out of defendant's store extended through the cornice. Aside from direct evidence as to water dripping from the cornice, such construction could lead to the reasonable inference that falling snow would melt and drip to the sidewalk.
The amount of damages was also a question of fact for the jury and in the light of the proof we do not feel that its finding in that respect should be disturbed.
Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.