Filsno v. City of Rochester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s ease apparently upon the ground that there had been a failure to prove compliance with an ordinance of defendant city which provided in substance that the city should not be liable and no action might be maintained against it for damages in consequence of any sidewalk being defective unless written notice thereof had been given and there was a failure to repair within a reasonable time. In our opinion…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Crandall v. City of AmsterdamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
- Cummings v. City of NorwichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
3Cited by7 opinions
- Posner v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Ocasio v. City of MiddletownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Romano v. County of MonroeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Montante v. City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Drake v. City of BuffaloBuffalo City Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.