From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acker v. Stiner

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1906
52 Misc. 157 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)

Opinion

December, 1906.

Samuel Frank, for appellant.

Nadal Carrere (William D. Stiger and Harold S. Recknagel, of counsel), for respondent.


Plaintiff, a tenant in a tenement-house, went to do some marketing and, upon her return half an hour later, claims to have been injured by falling in a hole in the basement hallway near the door of her apartment. Her husband testified that, during the time of his wife's absence, he saw the housekeeper working in the hallway in or about the hole and later, upon hearing his wife scream, he went out and saw her with one foot in. Hallway was dark. Defendant's housekeeper was called, but was not questioned about the work he was doing in the hallway when seen by plaintiff's husband. If the hall was rendered dangerous by any act on the part of defendant's servant and no precaution to enable tenants, by the exercise of reasonable care, to guard against accident, a question of fact was presented and a prima facie case made out; and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

GILDERSLEEVE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Acker v. Stiner

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1906
52 Misc. 157 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
Case details for

Acker v. Stiner

Case Details

Full title:FANNIE ACKER, Appellant, v . SAMUEL STINER, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1906

Citations

52 Misc. 157 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
101 N.Y.S. 766