From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplan v. Lyons Building and Operating Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1908
61 Misc. 315 (N.Y. App. Term 1908)

Opinion

December, 1908.

Frank V. Johnson (Louis Cohn, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles S. Rosenthal, for respondent.


The weight of the evidence does not sustain the plaintiff's contention. He is uncorroborated, and describes a condition of affairs that is highly improbable, if not impossible. It is not contended that the elevator and machinery were not in perfect order, so that the only negligence attempted to be shown was in the act of defendant's servant, the elevator attendant. On that point the evidence of the defendant is positive that the elevator man was not in the building at the time; and it would require more than the impossible story of the plaintiff to overcome that testimony. Moreover, I do not think that the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence was shown. He walked into the elevator while it stood there empty and without any one in control. He placed himself in a position of danger. The mere fact that the door was open was not an invitation to get into the elevator when no one was in charge of it. Green v. Urban Contracting Heating Co., 106 A.D. 460.

GIEGERICH and FORD, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Kaplan v. Lyons Building and Operating Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1908
61 Misc. 315 (N.Y. App. Term 1908)
Case details for

Kaplan v. Lyons Building and Operating Co.

Case Details

Full title:MOSES KAPLAN, Respondent, v . THE J.C. LYONS BUILDING AND OPERATING…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1908

Citations

61 Misc. 315 (N.Y. App. Term 1908)
113 N.Y.S. 516

Citing Cases

Sgandurra v. 220 Estates

The defendant, of course, does not complain because the issue of contributory negligence remained in the…

Brush v. Constable

Although the conclusion reached by the jury may have been one which the learned trial court would not have…