From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Serlin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1943
266 App. Div. 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)

Opinion

March 1, 1943.


Action to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff claims that she was caused to fall while descending the stairway of the Eighth avenue subway line at Thirty-third street as the result of the overcrowded condition of the stairway, of which condition defendant had, or should have had, notice. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. Defendant was bound to exercise only ordinary care, in view of the dangers to be apprehended. ( Beltz v. Buffalo, R. P.R. Co., 222 N.Y. 433, 436; De Renzis v. New York Rapid Transit Corp., 256 App. Div. 367.) That obligation did not involve the placing of guards to control the people descending the steps from the street, under the conditions here disclosed. There is no claim that the stairs were defective or out of order in any respect. Close, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Serlin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1943
266 App. Div. 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)
Case details for

Serlin v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ESTHER SERLIN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1943

Citations

266 App. Div. 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)

Citing Cases

Glennon v. James McCreery Co.

The verdict was contrary to the weight of the credible proof. The defendant was bound to exercise care…

Vogel v. State of New York

In some jurisdictions it has been held that an escalator is a common carrier. (Weiner v. May Dept. Stores…