#### Alice Holland, Appellant, *against*The Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent.

(Decided April '7th, 1890.)

Plaintiff was injured by falling off a gang plank into an open stairway in landing from a boat on defendant city’s dock. The maintenance of the stairway was necessary for landing passengers, and the dock was not defective or in a dangerous condition. In an action to recover for the injury there was no proof that the boat or gang plank was owned or furnished by defendant or operated by its servants. *Held,*that the complaint was properly dismissed.

Appeal from a judgment of this court entered on the dismissal of a complaint at the trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Samuel EL. Randall,*for appellant.

*Sidney J. Cowan,*for respondent.

Bischoff, J.

Action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant’s servants.

On December 12th, 1887, about 9:30 p. m., the plaintiff, returning from a visit to the House of Refuge on Randall’s Island in the East ■ River, was conveyed by boat from thence to the defendant’s dock at the foot of East 120th 0 Street in the City of New York. The transfer of passengers from the boat to the dock was effected by means of an adjustable gang plank of about two and one-half feet in width resting at one end upon the boat, and at the other on an open stairway in the end of the dock, the stairway being about eight feet wide by six feet in depth. In attempting to reach the dock by means of the gang plank, the plaintiff stepped off the plank to the side thereof, and, falling into the stairway opening left uncovered by the gang plank, sustained *125severe injuries. On the trial the dock was shown to be public, owned and controlled by defendant, and that the open stairway therein had been constructed by the managers of the House of Refuge with the permission of the defendant, to facilitate the landing of passengers; that the gang plank used in the transfer of passengers, and by means of which plaintiff attempted to reach the dock, was not provided with guards, and that in the use of the gang plank in the manner described a portion of the stairway was necessarily left uncovered. It was also shown that the dock was not sufficiently lighted near the open stairway. There was, however, no proof that the boat or gang plank was the property of the defendant of that either was managed or operated by the defendant’s servants. It did not appear that 'the dock was in need of repair or that its construction was defective or its condition dangerous. The open stairway was necessary in the landing of passengers, and its maintenance was not a nuisance. The plaintiff was not injured while on the dock, but in an attempt to reach it, and the means furnished her for access to the dock were not shown to have been furnished by defendant, in or any way under the control or management of its servants. There is nothing in the proof adduced on behalf of the plaintiff from which the law could imply a duty on the part of the defendant to furnish the plaintiff with safe and proper means of access to the dock from the boat which conveyed her thither.

There is then an utter absence of proof of any fact upon which the negligence of the defendant’s servants at the time of the accident to the plaintiff could be predicated, and no error was committed by the trial judge in directing a dismissal of the complaint.

J. F. Daly, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.