From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brotzman v. Lindenfeld

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 9, 1929
133 Misc. 832 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)

Opinion

April 9, 1929.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.

Daniel Mungall, for the appellant.

Nathan Finkelstein, for the respondent.


The sole claim of negligence herein was that the defendant, an abutting owner, permitted snow and ice to accumulate on a coal hole cover in the highway in front of his premises. The snow and ice were normal accumulations. Negligence cannot be predicated on the failure of the abutting owner to remove such accumulation, even though there is a city ordinance requiring the owner to remove it. ( City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N.Y. 405; Tremblay v. Harmony Mills, 171 id. 598; Lee v. Ortiz, 249 id. 613; Thomp. Neg. § 1219.)

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, LYDON, CALLAHAN and PETERS, JJ.


Summaries of

Brotzman v. Lindenfeld

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 9, 1929
133 Misc. 832 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
Case details for

Brotzman v. Lindenfeld

Case Details

Full title:ANNA BROTZMAN, Respondent, v. MICHAEL LINDENFELD, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Apr 9, 1929

Citations

133 Misc. 832 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
234 N.Y.S. 79

Citing Cases

Childers v. Deschamps

( Hanley v. Fireproof Bldg. Co., 107 Neb. 544, 186 N.W. 534, 24 A.L.R. 382, and cases discussed in note. See,…

Basson v. Heald

The mere failure to remove ice and snow from the sidewalk does not create a liability on the part of the lot…