Case Name: Josephine Abadie, Appellant, v. Hyde Real Estate Corporation, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-10-29
Citations: 224 N.Y. 641
Docket Number: 
Parties: Josephine Abadie, Appellant, v. Hyde Real Estate Corporation, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 224
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
Josephine Abadie, Appellant, v. Hyde Real Estate Corporation, Respondent.
Abadie v. Hyde Real Estate Corporation, 174 App. Div. 858, affirmed.
(Argued October 14, 1918;
decided October 29, 1918.)
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 30, 1916, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor .of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to. have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff leased from defendant the upper two floors of a three-story and basement house. She was permitted to use a room in the basement for storage purposes. She fell down the basement stairs and received the injuries complained of. The stairway, down which the plaintiff fell, was next to the wall of the building on the one side and was inclosed by a wooden partition on the other, and was about three and one-half feet in width. There was no handrail provided, and of this condition the appellant herself was- fully aware. The allegations of negligence were that there was something on the stairs, about two steps from the top, which caused the appellant to fall, and that by reason thereof and of the lack of light on the stairs, and the absence of a handrail, the" appellant fell from the second step of the stairs to the bottom. The following questions, of law were involved: Does the Tenement House Law require that a handrail should be provided upon a stairway of the sort described in the case at bar? Does a tenant, who has knowledge of the absence of a handrail, assume the risk of any injury resulting from its absence? Is the contributory negligence of a tenant to be détermined by' the same standard as is applied to strangers using unfamiliar hallways?
Oscar Wagner for appellant.
Bertrand L. Pettigrew and W. L. Glenney for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed,' with costs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock:, Ch. J., Chase, Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ. Dissenting: Hogan and Andrews, JJ.