Van Hovenburg v. City of New York

Upon the trial of this action the complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s proof on two grounds: First. That no actionable negligence on the part of the city was shown, and, second, that the notice required by law to be served upon the proper officers of the municipality was insufficient.

A motion for a new trial is made and it is argued, on the part of the plaintiff, that the defendant was •negligent in permitting a hole or depression to exist in the sidewalk, and that such hole or depression was the proximate cause of the injury.

The answer to this contention is that while the…