Hyperlawhypertext legal database Frangis Y. Hoffman 157 N.Y.S. 764

← Cases

Frangis Y. Hoffman

157 N.Y.S. 764 Court Argued February term, 1916, before LEHMAN, WEEKS, and DELEHANTY, JJ. Decision date 1916-03-13 English

Delivered by WEEKS, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 764
FRANCIS v. HOFFMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
March 13, 1916.)

Headnote

Landlord and Tenant <3=169(6)—Injury to Tenant—Negligence.
Plaintiff tenant, familiar with a stairway and knowing of the existence of a hand rail, but who did not use it, and who did not explain the cause of his falling, except that his foot slipped, or he made a misstep, as descending, or show that the slip was caused by any defect in the stairway, or was attributable to the absence of light, or his own freedom from contributory negligence, had no cause of action against the defendant landlord for negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 645, 665, 683; Dec. Dig. <3=169(6).]
cg^oEor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Herbert H. Francis against Emilie Hoffman. From a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $88, rendered by the court without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and judgment entered dismissing the complaint.
Argued February term, 1916, before LEHMAN, WEEKS, and DELEHANTY, JJ.
Stern, Barr & Tyler, of New York City (Henry C. Moses, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Isidor H. Taylor, of New York City, for respondent.

No explanation was given as to the cause of plaintiff’s fall, except that his foot slipped, or he made a misstep on the

p. 765
stairway, as he was descending. There was no evidence that the slipping was caused by any defect in the stairway, or that the accident was attributable to the absence of a light.

Plaintiff was familiar with the stairway, and knew of the existence of a handrail, but did not use it.. There was no proof of freedom from contributory negligence, and the motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case should have been granted. Schindler v. Welz & Zerweck, 145 App. Div. 532 , 130 N. Y. Supp. 344 ; Broadbent v. N. Y. Evening Journal Pub. Co., 147 App. Div. 133 , 131 N. Y. Supp. 780 .

The judgment appealed from should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment entered dismissing the complaint, with costs. All concur.