From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zapin v. Israel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1955
285 App. Div. 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)

Opinion

March 14, 1955.

Present — MacCrate, Acting P.J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.


In an action to recover damages sustained by the infant plaintiff, and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services, the complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiffs' case. It appeared that the parents of the infant plaintiff were tenants in defendant's multiple dwelling. While playing alone in the back yard appurtenant to the premises, the infant plaintiff found an umbrella rib or spoke, pushed it into the ground in the yard, whereupon it snapped in half and went into his right eye. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. There is no proof of violation of subdivision 1 of section 80 Mult. Dwell. of the Multiple Dwelling Law because there was no proof of notice, actual or constructive, to defendant of the presence of the umbrella rib or spoke before the accident. The spoke was not a structure maintained by defendant in connection with its premises, nor was there proof that defendant placed the spoke in the yard, nor that it had notice thereof, nor that the umbrella spoke or rib was an inherently or potentially dangerous instrumentality. ( Di Biase v. Ewart Lake, 228 App. Div. 407, affd. 255 N.Y. 620; Clark v. City of Buffalo, 288 N.Y. 62.)


Summaries of

Zapin v. Israel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 14, 1955
285 App. Div. 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)
Case details for

Zapin v. Israel

Case Details

Full title:IRA ZAPIN, an Infant, by CEIL ZAPIN, His Guardian ad Litem, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 14, 1955

Citations

285 App. Div. 968 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)

Citing Cases

Liranzo v. Apartment Co.

In fact, plaintiff stated that on the day of the accident, she did not leave her apartment until the time of…

Garcia v. 184th W. 10th St. Corp.

16. 184 cannot be liable pursuant to MDL § 78 (repairs) because there is no evidence that it created the…