From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beech v. Weber

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 11, 1924
123 Misc. 926 (N.Y. App. Term 1924)

Opinion

November 11, 1924.

Benjamin Rich ( Simon M. Sapinsky, of counsel), for the appellant.

Bertrand L. Pettigrew ( Laurence C. Stryker, of counsel), for the respondent.


We are of the opinion that plaintiff made out a prima facie case. In Kaufman v. Young, 157 N.Y.S. 778, this court stressed the facts that the steps were of slate, and that no oily or greasy substance was used in the cleaning. Here the proof was that the hallway was cleaned with "hot soapy water." The facts in Curtiss v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 233 N.Y. 554, make the situation there clearly distinguishable from that here, and, furthermore, in his dissenting opinion ( 194 A.D. 931) H.T. Kellogg, J., stresses the fact that there was no evidence of the use of soap. We believe the case is controlled by our decision in Bussue v. Wagner Leasing Co., 202 N.Y.S. 711, and that the case should have been sent to the jury.

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

All concur; present, GUY, BIJUR and MULLAN, JJ.


Summaries of

Beech v. Weber

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 11, 1924
123 Misc. 926 (N.Y. App. Term 1924)
Case details for

Beech v. Weber

Case Details

Full title:ROSE BEECH, Plaintiff, Appellant, v . ANNA WEBER, Defendant, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Nov 11, 1924

Citations

123 Misc. 926 (N.Y. App. Term 1924)
206 N.Y.S. 718

Citing Cases

Jacobs v. Danziger

(See Kerstein v. Goodman, 130 Misc. 714, and cases there cited.) Respondent contends that the mere presence…

Gondolfi v. Palisade Holding Co., Inc.

"A judgment dismissing the complaint should be reversed and a new trial granted, since plaintiff made out a…