Legal Opinion

Kowalchick v. Reshin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided March 9, 1933PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The manifest purpose of the ordinance (Code of Ordinances, chap. 23, § 164) was to protect travelers on the sidewalk from falling into an open cellar entrance by providing adequate safeguards to warn them of danger. The ordinance was not intended to require the owner of the building to erect barriers to keep those who were fully aware of the presence of the opening from approaching it. (Greenberg v. Schlanger, 229 N. Y. 120; Olsen v. Fennia Realty Co., 246 id. 641; Swartzman v. Socol Realty Co., 233 App. Div. 374.) Since the record reveals that the infant plaintiff knew that the cellar door…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Greenberg v. . SchlangerNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  2. Swartzman v. Socol Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cuevas v. 73rd & Central Park West Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  2. Giardina v. Bricken Textile Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API