
    Mary B. Bancroft, Resp’t, v. The City of Newburgh, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 13, 1893.)
    
    Municipal corporations — Negligence.
    Plaintiff was injured by a fall caused by her foot being caught in a defect or depression in the sidewalk. The evidence was conflicting, but there was some evidence which, if credited, would warrant the inference-that the flagging at this point had been out of repair and more or less, dangerous for many months and that other persons had tripped or stumbled at this place. Held, that a verdict for plaintiff would not be'disturbed,
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff for $1,500, entered on verdict.
    
      C. L. Waring, for app’lt; M. H. Hirschberg, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon a verdict by a jury and from a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. :

It appears that the plaintiff, while walking upon a public sidewalk in said city, tripped and fell, injuring her hand, and that, the fall was occasioned by a defect or depression in the sidewalk upon or by which her foot was caught.

There was dispute as usual in such cases upon the facts, but there was testimony, if credited by the jury, that warranted the inference that the flagging upon the sidewalk at tMs place had been out of repair and more or less dangerous for pedestrians for many months, and that other persons had tripped and stumbled at the same point.

All the issues were presented to the jury in a charge clear and perspicuous, and as favorable for the defendant as the evidence warranted."

It was apparent that the defect was one which by ordinary care a pedestrian would not be likely to see and avoid, still it was: one which by its location and the long time it had existed, ought, to have been discovered and remedied by the city authorities.

The rules as to defects in public streets and the care which people traveling upon them must exercise are so familiar that it. seems unnecessary to enlarge upon them. Hunt v. Mayor, 109 N. Y., 141; 15 St. Rep., 62; Davenport v. Ruckman, 37 N. Y., 573; Turner v. Newburgh, 109 id., 304; 15 St. Rep., 93, and 99 N. Y., 654.

The exceptions taken upon the trial were not urged upon the argument, but we have examined them and find no error.

The damages are not excessive and the judgment ought to» stand.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.  