Legal Opinion

Marcus v. Manhattan Beach Parks Corp.

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

Decided January 24, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

From the plaintiff’s proof and the photographs in evidence, the jury could have found that the defect which caused the plaintiff’s fall was the result of gradual wear or deterioration and that consequently the defendant was chargeable with constructive notice of the condition.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote for affirmance.

Judgment dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case reversed and a new…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Valle v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Keirstead v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  3. Shapiro v. Hotel Corp. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  4. Batton v. ElghanayanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  5. Levi v. E. J. Korvette, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API