New York Court of Appeals, 1945

McCabe v. Cohen

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 19, 1945 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

63 N.E.2d 88; 294 N.Y. 522 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (District Court, W.D. New York 1994)
Smith v. Monmaney (Vt. 1969)
Anderson v. COSMOPOLITAN NAT. BK. OF CHICAGO (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)
Rosario v. Koss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
Caporaletti v. AF CORPORATION (District Court, District of Columbia 1956)
Jack v. Weiner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Laby v. Gordon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
Feldman v. Feldman (New York Supreme Court 1960)
Sarnicandro v. Lake Developers, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)
Grace v. Dry Dock Savings Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1957)
Brown v. Du Frey (N.Y. 1956)
Kluttz v. Citron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
Castanos v. Lansing (New York Supreme Court 1956)
Derby v. Public Service Company (N.H. 1955)
La Barbera v. Ciotta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1950)
Zeledon v. Bowery Savings Bank (New York Supreme Court 1948)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the president of the defendant-appellant knew that the fire escapes, including the stairway in question, were “ at a point where further corrosion would make them dangerous ”; that he had reason to believe that the vendee would not realize the risk involved and that he failed to disclose this condition to the vendee. Under the rule approved in Kilmer v. White (254 N. Y. 64) and in Pharm v. Lituchy (283 N. Y. 130), the trial court properly refused to dismiss the complaint (Restatement of Torts, § 353).

In view of the defendant-appellant ’s failure to take proper exception to the charge with respect to sections 564-15.0 and C26-193.0 of the Administrative Code, we do not pass upon the applicability of those sections to the evidence in this record.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher and Dye, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.