From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cardoza v. Sheiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 6, 1969
33 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

November 6, 1969


Judgment entered May 14, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant and the complaint dismissed. In this action against an abutting property owner for personal injuries resulting from a fall on the sidewalk, plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action. The basis of the claim is that in attempting to clear a path immediately after an extremely heavy fall of snow, defendant left the sidewalk in a more dangerous condition than it would have been in if no such effort were made. The proof utterly fails to sustain that contention ( Glassman v. City of New York, 1 N.Y.2d 712; Bonfrisco v. Marlib Corp., 24 N.Y.2d 817; Golub v. City of New York, 201 Misc. 866, affd. 282 App. Div. 666). Moreover, the finding of the jury as to how the accident occurred is against the weight of the credible evidence.

Concur — Eager, J.P., Tilzer, McGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Cardoza v. Sheiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 6, 1969
33 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Cardoza v. Sheiner

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR CARDOZA, Respondent, v. JACK SHEINER, as Executor of ANNA S…

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

Date published: Nov 6, 1969

Citations

33 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

Mandel v. City of New York

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff's proof, viewed in its most…

Gasior v. Ehrlich

No questions of fact were presented by this appeal. In our opinion there were questions of fact which should…