From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1916
174 App. Div. 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)

Opinion

July, 1916.

Present — Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.


The plaintiff showed that cold weather lessened the resistance of the cast iron snap, but did not show that the snap in question had been subjected to cold sufficient for that purpose on the day in question or before that. Facera, to the question whether the weather, was cold on the morning of November 23, 1914, answered, "Some." Whether it was cold enough to affect the snap injuriously does not appear. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the frequent participation of the court in the trial was disconcerting and prejudicial. But it did not preclude the counsel from showing a temperature that rendered the use of the bit improper. Hence, assuming that the jury could infer that the snap broke and caused the injury, negligent use of it on the day in question was not shown. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.


Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Allen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1916
174 App. Div. 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)
Case details for

Allen v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MARY ALLEN, as Administratrix, etc., of MICHAEL DE CRUICCIO, Deceased…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1916

Citations

174 App. Div. 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)