Edward Christenson v. City New York

In our opinion, evidence that plaintiff slipped on a general condition of ice in a crosswalk about 68 hours after the second largest recorded snowfall in the history of the City of New York was insufficient to present a jury question as to whether defendant was negligent in failing to remove the accumulated ice (Staub v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 612; Kirsch v. City of New York, 289 N. Y. 684; Reutlinger v. City of New York, 281 N. Y. 592; Seltzer v. City of New York, 266 App. Div. 880, affd. 292 N. Y. 560; Schwabl v. St. Augustine's Church, 288 N. Y. 554; Williams v. City of New York, 214 N. Y. 259; Dupont v. Village of Port Chester, 204 N. Y. 351; Taylor v. City of Yonkers, 105 N. Y. 202, 206; Sisson v. City of New York, 20 A.D.2d 695; Yonki v. City of New York, 276 App. Div. 407, app. dsmd. 303 N. Y. 852; Rapoport v. City of New York, 281 App. Div. 33; Fischetti v. City of New York, 269 App. Div. 948). It was error, however, to take from the jury the question as to whether the existence of a large hole in the crosswalk might have been a concurrent proximate cause of the accident (Foley v. State of New York, 294 N. Y. 275, 280; Ring v. City of Cohoes, 77 N. Y. 83, 88; Smith v. City of New York, 282 App. Div. 495, 497; affd. 307 N. Y. 843; Hall v. State of New York, 28 A.D.2d 1203; Pfeffer v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 889; see 5 Warren's N. Y. Negligence, pp. 622-623). Accordingly, a new trial is required. Disposition The findings of fact below are not affirmed.