From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pryga v. Will

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1949
275 App. Div. 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

March 16, 1949.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, PIPER, J.

Byron R. Woodin for appellant-respondent.

McKinley L. Phillips for Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., appellant.

Robert N. Palmer for Frank L. Will, respondent.

Present — TAYLOR, P.J., McCURN, LOVE, VAUGHAN and KIMBALL, JJ.


In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell through a coal hole allegedly negligently maintained by defendants in a public sidewalk in front of a building owned by defendant Will and leased in part to defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., for commercial purposes, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor against defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., for $2,000 and in favor of defendant Will for no cause of action. Plaintiff and defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., on this appeal challenge the adverse verdicts. On the trial plaintiff introduced in evidence, over the objection of defendant Danahy-Faxon Stores, Inc., section 5 of chapter II of the Ordinances of the City of Dunkirk, New York, which provided: "Section 5. It shall be the duty of every owner or occupant of any premises fronting on any public street or ground to keep the sidewalk of the same in good order and repair, and he shall allow no accumulation of refuse to remain thereon."

The court instructed the jury that negligence might be predicated upon a violation of this ordinance, and said defendant excepted. We think that this instruction was prejudicial error. The ordinance did not assume to make the owner or occupant of the abutting premises liable for injury or damage sustained by reason of a failure to keep the sidewalk in good order and repair. (See City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N.Y. 405, 413; Willis v. Parker, 225 N.Y. 159.) On plaintiff's appeal we conclude that the verdict in favor of the defendant Will is against the weight of the evidence. On this record we think a new trial should be granted as to both defendants.

All concur.


Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.


Summaries of

Pryga v. Will

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1949
275 App. Div. 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Pryga v. Will

Case Details

Full title:FRANK PRYGA, Appellant-Respondent, v. FRANK L. WILL, Respondent, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 16, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
87 N.Y.S.2d 162

Citing Cases

Marsh v. McLaughlin

ir premises, the work to be done by the municipality at the expense of the abutting owners in case of their…

Jacques v. Maratskey

It shall in all cases, be the duty of the owner of every lot or piece of land in said city to keep his…