14 Misc. 439 | City of New York Municipal Court | 1895
If .there, was any; omission on the part of the city to have the accumulation of snow and ice on. the sidewalks removed, by which omission or negligence an accident occurred, this defendant cannot be held responsible; nor the fact of a city ordinance requiring the owner to do certain things . in regard to cleaning snow and ice is not of' itself sufficientto give a cause of action to a party injured by an act in violation of its terms. It is a .police regulation and does not add to or take .from the liability of’the party. Knupfle v. Ice Co., 84 N. Y, 488 ; Moore v. Gadsden, 93 id. 12, 17. The plaintiff, however, contends that the passageway or walk from the sider walk to the house is a part of the lot or premises known as Ho. 334 West- Sixty-sixth street. This appears to' be correct according to the measurements testified, to by Melvin G-., Pal- ' lister, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses ;. that it is the means of entering and reaching the premises, and is under the control and management of the defendant.
. Mr. Crumbie was Owner' of this apartment house, renting only the apartments and reserving, to himself and taking care of the hallways; and this passageway to the sidewalk by 'a janitor, a Mr. Falconer. The tenants had no charge or control over hallways or passageways at all. The plaintiff was lawfully on the premises in the act of visiting one of the „tenants, as she had the right to do. It seems to us that the rule to be applied to the- evidence in this case is that when the oWner of land expressly, or by implication, invites, a per- • son to come upon his .land he cannot, permit Anything of the nature of a snare to exist or be maintained thereon which results in injury to the person who avails himself of the invitation and who, at .the time, is. exercising ordinary care, without being answerable' for the. consequences. . We think the' circumstances imposed a duty on the defendant to protect this passageway and see that no nuisance existed and the place was reasonably safe. Beck v. Carter, 68 N. Y. 291, 292; Murphy v. City of Brooklyn, 118 id. 579 ; O’Sullivan v. Norwood, 8 N. Y. St. Repr. 388.
DaVis, P. J., in Henkel v. Muir, 31 Hun, 28, 29, Says:
Judgment is, therefore, reversed and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Coklan, J., concurs.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.