From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruszacynaska v. Ruby

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 16, 1945
60 N.E.2d 26 (N.Y. 1945)

Opinion

Submitted November 27, 1944

Decided January 16, 1945

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, COLLINS, J.

Max Tachna and Myron Goldman for appellant.

H.H. Brown, Arthur N. Blair and E.C. Sherwood for respondent.


Whether or not control of the premises had passed from the lessor to the lessee was a question of fact which was determined adversely to the defendant by the trial court. It was a fair inference from the evidence that such control had not passed. We do not decide the question whether if there had been technical abandonment of control by the lessor, there would still be liability on her part. (See Restatement of the Law of Torts, § 353; Kilmer v. White, 254 N.Y. 64.)

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and THACHER, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Bruszacynaska v. Ruby

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 16, 1945
60 N.E.2d 26 (N.Y. 1945)
Case details for

Bruszacynaska v. Ruby

Case Details

Full title:ROSA BRUSZACYNASKA, Appellant, v. SELMA RUBY, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 16, 1945

Citations

60 N.E.2d 26 (N.Y. 1945)
60 N.E.2d 26

Citing Cases

McKenna v. State of New York

And questions of fact may arise as to whether or not the landlord reserved control. (Bruszacynaska v. Ruby,…

McKenna v. State of New York

And questions of fact may arise as to whether or not the landlord reserved control. ( Bruszacynaska v. Ruby,…