From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keegan v. Hohorst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

May, 1932.


Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Hughes v. Borden's Farm Products Company, Inc. ( 252 N.Y. 532) and Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 id. 622). Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents upon the ground that the law of the case requires a finding that the alleged grease spot on the sidewalk was placed there by the defendants or their employees, and that there is no evidence to support such a finding; further, that the proof is just as consistent with a finding that the grease spot was deposited by a customer of the defendants as it is with the finding reached by the jury.


Summaries of

Keegan v. Hohorst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Keegan v. Hohorst

Case Details

Full title:CLARA KEEGAN, Respondent, v. CHARLES H. HOHORST and JOHN B. HAFF…

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

Date published: May 1, 1932

Citations

235 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Citing Cases

Tagg v. Senner

The evidence justified the inference that the spinach fell from a stand maintained by Tantillo in front of…

BERTA v. MAK FRUIT VEGETABLE MARKET, INC

Present — Young, Kapper, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers unanimously…