Case ID: nys_159/html/0730-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BIJUR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PRICE v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    June 26, 1916.)
    Municipal Corporations @=821(16)—Accident on Sidewalk-—Question for Jury.
    In an action for personal injuries resulting from a fall into a hole on a sidewalk, a foot deep and 18 or 20 inches in size, where it appeared that the hole had existed for at least six or seven weeks prior to the accident, whether or not the defendant city had constructive notice held for the jury.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. fj 1700; Dec. Dig. @=821(16).]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    Action by Celia Price against the City of New York. From a judgment for defendant, dismissing complaint at the close of the entire case, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued June term, 1916,
    before GUY, BIJUR, and PHILBIN, JJ.
    Leopold Freiman, of New York City, for appellant.
    Lamar Hardy, of New York City (Terence Farley, William E. C. Mayer, and Philip N. Harrison, all of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
   BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall into- a hole on the sidewalk at No. 2 Clinton street, which was about a foot deep and 18 or 20 inches in size. There was sufficient testimony that the hole had existed for at least six or seven weeks prior to the accident, and it was therefore error to refuse to submit the case to the jury on the question whether or not the city had constructive notice.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.