Parry v. State
New York Court of Claims
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, P. J.
The facts, which are substantially not in dispute, are set forth in detail in the accompanying decisions and need not be repeated here.
There is no evidence that the State invited the public on its premises. At best, claimants were bare licensees, to whom the State owed only the duty of refraining from aErmative acts of negligence and from intentionally or wantonly injuring them. They took the premises as they found them. (Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240. See, also, Donahue v. State of New York, 112 N. Y. 142; Panunzio v. State of New York, 28 N. Y. S. 2d 927, affd. 266 App.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Beck v. . CarterNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Fox v. . Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Donahue v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Kittle v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Granger v. City of CanandaiguaNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pendino v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1949
- Yerden v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1950