From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luciano v. Mapart, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1961
14 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Opinion

November 9, 1961


Judgment upon a directed verdict for defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. While under some circumstances a glass door exit may be constructed or maintained in a manner so as to constitute negligence (see Shannon v. Broadway 41st St. Corp., 272 App. Div. 1029, affd. 298 N.Y. 589), in the instant case there was a complete absence of proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. There was no evidence offered to show faulty construction or improper maintenance. Consequently a direction of a verdict for the defendant was warranted (see Cooper v. Scharf, 11 A.D.2d 101) ,

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Luciano v. Mapart, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1961
14 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)
Case details for

Luciano v. Mapart, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY LUCIANO, Appellant, v. MAPART, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1961

Citations

14 A.D.2d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Citing Cases

Vella v. Seacoast Towers "A," Inc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. "While under some circumstances a glass door exit may be constructed or…

Gardino v. H.S. Barney Co., Inc.

There was no evidence offered to show faulty construction or improper maintenance." ( Luciano v. Mapart,…