Legal Opinion

Feinstein v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided December 8, 1958PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The order should be unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs. Evidence that defendant’s employee sanded the subway platform after the alleged occurrence was inadmissible to show negligence and was improperly received. (Getty v. Town of Hamlin, 127 N. Y. 636; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 173.) It was error to charge that defendant, as a common carrier, owed a greater duty toward passengers than did the City of New York toward pedestrians on a public sidewalk. The duty as to platform is that of ordinary care (Belts v. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 222 N. Y. 433; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 111 N.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Palmer v. . Pennsylvania Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
  2. Bottalico v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  3. Getty v. Town of HamlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. McLean v. Triboro Coach Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1950
  5. Beltz v. . Buffalo, R. P. Ry. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Masone v. FerinoCity of New York Municipal Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API