Legal Opinion

Schaaf v. Rochester Trust & Safe Deposit Co.

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

Decided March 6, 1940PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Plaintiff claims that under the Tenement House Law there should have been a railing along the sidewalk on which he slipped and fell. Even if the premises be considered as a tenement house, a railing is not required along outside steps or walks. (Indinali v. Lerner, 243 App. Div. 735; Hunter v. G. W. H. W. Realty Co., Inc., 247 id. 385.) As the entire premises at No. 29 Inwood Place had been leased to a tenant and the defendant did not retain control of any part thereof, the defendant is not liable for any injuries…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cullings v. GoetzNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Indinali v. LernerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Flanagan v. RosoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  2. Bruszaczynaska v. RubyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API