Rommeney v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, The City of New York and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of March, 1899, upon the verdict of a jury for $4,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13tli day of March, 1899, denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
1Opinion of the Court
Hatch, J.:
The proof upon the part of the plaintiff tended to establish, and the jury were authorized to find, that the defendant city of New *65York was so far responsible for the condition which was created in the street as to constitute negligence upon its part in permitting the condition to exist, so that under the proof liability was properly ■charged against it. So far as the defendants Burkard and Meyer are concerned, the evidence was sufficient from which the jury were authorized to find that they were responsible for the existence of the pile of sand in the street; that the same…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Whitlatch v. . Fidelity and Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Heinemann v. . HeardNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
3Cited by4 opinions
- Burd v. BleischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Forbes v. City of JamestownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Hamel v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Kearns v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901