From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De Tankerville v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 2, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1099 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

November 2, 1967


Judgment for defendant unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. In this action against the city to recover for personal injuries resulting from a fall upon a sidewalk, there was no proof of actual notice to the city of the very small hole which caught the heel of plaintiff's shoe. Also, as a matter of law, the evidence in the record as to the nature and size of the alleged hole and the length of time of its existence is not sufficient to support a finding that defendant was chargeable with constructive notice of its existence and thereby subjected to a duty of repair. Where, as here, "the defect is so slight that no careful or prudent man would reasonably anticipate any danger from its existence but, still, an accident happens which could have been guarded against by the exercise of extraordinary care and foresight, the question of the defendant's responsibility is one of law." ( Beltz v. City of Yonkers, 148 N.Y. 67, 70.)

Concur — Eager, J.P., Steuer, Tilzer, McNally and McGivern, JJ.


Summaries of

De Tankerville v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 2, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1099 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

De Tankerville v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ETHEL DE TANKERVILLE et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 2, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 1099 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Procida v. City of New York

(Cf. James, Proof of the Breach in Negligence Cases, 37 Va. L. Rev. 179, 191-192.) Furthermore, there was no…