Croner v. Village of Monticello
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtSchenck, J.
The question as to whether or not the curb which is alleged to have caused plaintiff’s intestate to fall constituted a nuisance negligently maintained by the defendant village was solely a question of fact for the jury, and the court so charged. The village is not an insurer and is not called upon to maintain *361streets in such perfect condition as to render an accident impossible, but is simply called upon to use reasonable care and prudence in detecting and remedying such defects as might be clearly anticipated would be dangerous and liable to cause an accident. The condition of the sidewalk…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McFarlane v. City of Niagara FallsNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Butler v. . Village of OxfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Dashnau v. City of OswegoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Stratton v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
- Eagan v. City of BuffaloNew York Supreme Court · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gaines v. Long Island State Park CommissionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977