Legal Opinion

Petersen v. Crawford

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

Decided April 10, 1942PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The evidence was sufficient to establish that the infant plaintiff, who was a playmate of a tenant, was an invitee; and that the yard appurtenant to defendants’ apartment houses had been used for a long time by plaintiff and the children of the tenants so as to make it a place used with the knowledge and consent of defendants, thus charging them with the duty of keeping it in a reasonably safe condition. (Murtha v. Ridley, 232 N. Y. 488; Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567, 570; affd., 260 N. Y. 604.) There was also ample evidence to support a finding that defendants should have…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1940
  2. Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  3. Parnell v. Holland Furnace CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  4. Murtha v. . RidleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1922

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Yazzolino v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Rashid v. WeillNew York Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Berdieff v. Seymour ArguleNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  4. D'Angelo v. Lubay Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API