
    ELLEN KELLY, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK AND SEA BEACH RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
    
      Negligence — liability of a railroad company to a passenger injured by defects in Us ears.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.
    The action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff by a fall in getting out of one of the defendant’s cars.
    The court at General Term said: “ The plaintiff was a passenger on one of the open cars of the defendant, and when she was about to alight from the car, one of the curtain hooks caught her dolman and she was swung from her balance and thrown to the ground, and received the injuries complained of in this action.
    “ The car was furnished with cross seats, with upright stanchions at the end, to which curtains were attached to be drawn together when the weather required. One of the curtains at the end of the seat was furnished with a ring, and the opposite curtain was furnished with a snap-hook, so that the curtains were held together by the hook and ring. When in order the point of the snap hook was protected by the pressure of the snap or latch against the point, which formed a continuous smooth surface, from which all substances would pass without being caught. The snap of the hook which caught the garment of the plaintiff was broken, and the hook was left pendent and without a guard, and that defect, and the failure to remove it, is the negligence underlying this action.
    “ The main facts relating to the accident and injury are without dispute.. The defective and broken condition of the hook was established, and that was sufficient to impose liability upon the defendant if the case of the plaintiff was otherwise made out.
    £‘ The questions of negligence and contributory negligence were fairly submitted to the jury, and the verdict was for the plaintiff, and that now carries all the questions of fact in her favor.”
    “ There are no errors disclosed by the record, and the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.”
    
      A. P. & IF. Man, for the appellant.
    
      Chas. J. Patterson, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.,. concurred.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.  