Bruno v. Almar Residences Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1962 |
| Citation | 229 N.Y.S.2d 426,11 N.Y.2d 988 |
| Parties | , 183 N.E.2d 703 Ralph BRUNO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALMAR RESIDENCES CORP., Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Appellant. Louis Brill, Doing Business as Consolidated Contracting Co., Third-Party Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 13 A.D.2d 232, 216 N.Y.S.2d 157.
An employee of a general contractor, which had contracted to alter building, brought an action against the owner of the building for the injuries sustained by the employee, and the owner of the building brought a third-party action against the general contractor.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County, Francis X. Conlon, J., rendered an order setting aside a verdict for the employee for $37,500, on employee's refusal to stipulate that verdict should be reduced to $20,000, and the owner appealed from that part of an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. The owner appealed.
The Appellate Division, McNally, J., reversed the order on the law, dismissed the complaint, dismissed the cross-complaint, and held that statutory obligation to furnish planking on second floor level of ventilating shaft was that of the employer of the injured employee. Breitel, J., dissented.
Appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals.
Jackrel & Hoffman, Brooklyn (Norman Bard and Max Jackrel, Brooklyn, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Irving Segal, New York City (Morris Zweibel and James David Auslander, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent-appellant Almar Residences Corp.
Anthony J. DeCicco, New York City (William F. McNulty, New York City, of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent Leo Brill.
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Cloutier Const. Corp.
...290 N.Y. 412, 419, 49 N.E.2d 507, 508; Bruno v. Almar Residences Corp., 13 A.D.2d 232, 236, 216 N.Y.S.2d 157, 161, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 988, 229 N.Y.S.2d 426, 183 N.E.2d 703). This nondelegable duty was made designedly broad to reach those who were thought to have the over-all responsibility for......
-
Rocha v. State
...by an independent contractor. (See Bruno v. Almar Residences Corp., 13 A.D.2d 232, 236, 216 N.Y.S.2d 157, 161; aff'd 11 N.Y.2d 988, 229 N.Y.S.2d 426, 183 N.E.2d 703.)' The Haskins case was decided in 1967 at a time when the applicable law, namely, section 241, by its very language, imposed ......
-
Whitaker v. Norman
...10 N.Y.2d 20, 217 N.Y.S.2d 25, 176 N.E.2d 53; Bruno v. Almar Residences Corp., 13 A.D.2d 232, 216 N.Y.S.2d 157, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 988, 229 N.Y.S.2d 426, 183 N.E.2d 703; Semanchuck v. Fifth Ave. & 37th St. Corp., 290 N.Y. 412, 49 N.E.2d 507; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 424). Accordingly, a......
-
Duke v. Eastman Kodak Co.
...captured in the underground tank (see, Bruno v. Almar Residences Corp., 13 A.D.2d 232, 234-235, 216 N.Y.S.2d 157, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 988, 229 N.Y.S.2d 426, 183 N.E.2d 703; Silvers v. E.W. Howell, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 694, 514 N.Y.S.2d 455). We do not consider the contention of defendant that secti......