Applebaum v. . Albrecht
Applebaum v. . Albrecht
238 N.Y. 617; 144 N.E. 915; 1924 N.Y. LEXIS 801
Applebaum v. . Albrecht
Opinion of the Court
We think a reasonable man could not reasonably suppose that the iron rod, appearing as it did, and situated as it was, had been placed in the pole *618 as a substitute for a spike, or that there was any invitation to mount or descend thereon.
The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ., concur; Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., dissent.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.