Keegan v. Hohorst

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of Hughes v. Borden’s Farm Products Company, Inc. ( 252 N. Y. 532 ) and Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Co. (80 id. 622 ). Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents upon the ground that the law of the case requires a finding that the alleged grease spot on the sidewalk was placed there by the defendants or their employees, and that there is no evidence to support such a finding; further, that the proof is just as consistent with a finding that the grease spot was deposited by a customer of the defendants as it is with the finding reached by the jury.