Legal Opinion

Indinali v. Lerner

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

Decided February 15, 1935PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In an action for damages due to the fall of plaintiff Mary Indinali down an outside stoop, claimed to have been caused by the absence of light in the vestibule and the absence of handrails on the stoop, judgment dismissing complaint on the merits unanimously affirmed, with costs. Section 35 of the Tenement House Law does not require handrails on an outside stoop leading into a multiple apartment house. (Bleichman v. Levy, 242 App. Div. 642; Freewald v. 1605 Nelson Ave., Inc., 236 id. 643.) The purpose of section 76 of the Tenement House Law is to require lighting in the vestibule entrance…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bleichman v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Schauf v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Flanagan v. RosoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  3. Hunter v. G. W. H. W. Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
  4. Owen v. Westchester Country Club, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  5. Spagat v. Regency Park, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API