From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kowalchick v. Reshin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 9, 1933
146 Misc. 770 (N.Y. App. Term 1933)

Opinion

March 9, 1933.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Edward Baruch [ Harry B. Frank of counsel], for the appellant.

Philip Blank, for the respondent.


The manifest purpose of the ordinance (Code of Ordinances, chap. 23, § 164) was to protect travelers on the side-walk from falling into an open cellar entrance by providing adequate safeguards to warn them of danger. The ordinance was not intended to require the owner of the building to erect barriers to keep those who were fully aware of the presence of the opening from approaching it. ( Greenberg v. Schlanger, 229 N.Y. 120; Olsen v. Fennia Realty Co., 246 id. 641; Swartzman v. Socol Realty Co., 233 A.D. 374.) Since the record reveals that the infant plaintiff knew that the cellar door was open and that she attempted to jump over it, the defendant was under no duty to protect her from the particular hazard which ensued.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed upon the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, LYDON, FRANKENTHALER and UNTERMYER, JJ.


Summaries of

Kowalchick v. Reshin

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 9, 1933
146 Misc. 770 (N.Y. App. Term 1933)
Case details for

Kowalchick v. Reshin

Case Details

Full title:ANNA KOWALCHICK, an Infant, by MARY KOWALCHICK, Her Guardian ad Litem, and…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1933

Citations

146 Misc. 770 (N.Y. App. Term 1933)
262 N.Y.S. 808

Citing Cases

Giardina v. Bricken Textile Corporation

Since the plaintiff's intestate fell from the side of the building, and not through any opening within the…

Cuevas v. 73rd Cent. Park West

He and another child lifted the grating and as the other released the grating it fell on the infant's hand.…