Legal Opinion

Graham v. East 88th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 7, 1953PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

We find that the instant submission of controversy is inadequate for a decision in favor of either party. It would appear that conflicting inferences may be drawn from the stipulated facts, especially as to the “ locked gate ”. There is nothing in the stipulation of facts to indicate the nature or how securely the gate was locked, nor how long it was locked, etc. Neither is there anything in the stipulation of facts to indicate whether or not the plaintiff made inquiry of the defendant as to why the gate was locked, nor what information was forth*755coming, if such inquiry was made. These…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lafrinz v. . WhitneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Mortgage CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Matter of Gorman's Restaurant, Inc. v. O'ConnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1949

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Appleton v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
  2. Capasso v. Square Sanitarium, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  3. Royal Norwegian Government v. Frango Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  4. Russel v. RusselAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API