Case Name: Charles Strobel, Respondent, v. The Mayor, etc., of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 15 Misc. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Strobel, Respondent, v. The Mayor, etc., of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
Charles Strobel, Respondent, v. The Mayor, etc., of New York, Appellant.
(New York Common Pleas—General Term,
December, 1895.)
Negligence—Municipal corporations —Notice op defects -in SIDEWALKS.
The existence of a defect in a sidewalk for three months is sufficient to charge the municipality with notice thereof, and render it liable for. injuries caused thereby. '
Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the defendant’s negligence.
Terence Farley and Theodore Connoly, for appellant.
Inglis Stuart and A. S. Hutchins, for respondent.

Opinion:
Bischoff, J.
This action was brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff, when lawfully upon the highway, . by reason of the defective condition of the sidewalk upon which he was proceeding, resulting from the Overlapped form of two flagstones in his path.
' . The evidence adduced in. his behalf is found to properly support the finding that this particular defect caused the injury and that the plaintiff was himself chargeable with no negligence contributing to the result. Further, the defendant's negligence in maintaining the sidewalk as noted was sufficiently apparent from the period of its existence in this defective form; an interval of three months, according' to some of the evidence.
In support ¿f the claim that this condition- of the flagstones was. not actually shown to have caused the injury, the defendant point's to the evidence of the plaintiff that his foot struck "-that stone," without an express statement appearing that the overlapping flagstone was intended, but, in view of all the circumstances shown by the proof in the case, we must hold that there was ample room for an inference to be drawn by the jury that the defendant's negligence, as pointed out, was the proximate' cause of the accident.
The award of damages, is not questioned, and we can find no error in the rulings upon the trial.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Daly, Oh.' J.,-and Bookstaver, J., concur.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.