From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keppler v. Loew's Blvd. Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 27, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 911 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

March 27, 1958

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, SAMUEL C. COLEMAN, J.

Archie Weltman, Thomas Bress and Seymour Smith for appellant.

Sidney Fluke for respondent.


Plaintiff has failed to prove any actionable negligence on defendant's part. It was in the province of the jury to find that it was raining and the usual added factor of danger existed from the dampness, but this was not enough. The portion of the lobby where plaintiff fell was an open and exposed place and defendant failed to provide a safer or drier place than the sidewalk, but the evidence does not show that the condition was more dangerous than the ordinary condition of a sidewalk on a rainy day.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

STEUER and AURELIO, JJ., concur; HOFSTADTER, J.P., concurs for reversal of judgment but dissents from dismissal of complaint and votes for a new trial.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Keppler v. Loew's Blvd. Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 27, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 911 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Keppler v. Loew's Blvd. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ZELDA KEPPLER, Respondent, v. LOEW'S BOULEVARD CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 27, 1958

Citations

11 Misc. 2d 911 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
172 N.Y.S.2d 618