Carroll v. Pellicio Bros. Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1964 |
| Parties | Ernest CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. PELLICIO BROS. INC., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Rothenberg & Beck, Mineola, for plaintiff; Leland Stuart Beck, Mineola, of counsel.
John J. O'Connor, New York City, for defendant; James Shannon, of counsel.
At the end on the plaintiff's case the defendant moved for a dismissal of both causes of action, and the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the second cause of action. After hearing extended argument the Court dismissed the first cause of action, which was grounded on common law negligence, and reserved decision on the second cause of action, which relied on Section 205-a of the General Municipal Law. Thereupon the defendant rested and renewed its motion to dismiss the second cause of action, and the plaintiff renewed his motion for a directed verdict.
The Court reserved decision on all trial motions, and submitted to the jury two special findings of fact and directed the jury to assess damages. The jury fixed damages in the amount of $18,000.00. This memorandum is for the purpose of passing upon these motions and the rendition of an appropriate general verdict.
In one of the special findings of fact the jury found that the bonfire which had been started by the defendant was one which 'may endanger other property', and was therefore in violation of Article 10 of the Fire Prevention Ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors of Nassau County. In the second special finding the jury found that the matter or debris which was piled and burned was garbage or refuse, and therefore its burning was in violation of Section 4 of the Smoke Ordinance of the Town of Hempstead. The defendant also violated Section 5 of the aforesaid Smoke Ordinance by the burning of combustible materials on private premises without obtaining a permit as provided for in the aforesaid section.
On the basis of these three violations the Court finds and rules that the plaintiff has a right to compensation for his injuries under Section 205-a of the General Municipal Law. That statute provides for a recovery by a fireman 'in the event any accident, causing injury * * * occurs directly or indirectly as a result' of the violation of an ordinance. The plaintiff need not prove freedom from contributory negligence, nor is assumption of risk a defense (Nykanen v. City of New York, 14 N.Y.2d 697, 250 N.Y.S.2d 53, 199 N.E.2d 155)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenavan v. City of New York
...of the statute therefore may include, but is not limited to, violations of fire preventive regulations (see, e.g., Carroll v. Pellicio Bros., 44 Misc.2d 832, 255 N.Y.S.2d 771, mod 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7, appeal dismissed 18 N.Y.2d 708, 274 N.Y.S.2d 144, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 658, 278 N.Y.S......
-
June v. Laris
...60, 517 N.E.2d 872.) Accordingly sect. 205-a liability has been found for violation of fire prevention regulations (Carroll v. Pellico Bros., 44 Misc.2d 832, 255 N.Y.S.2d 771, mod. 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7, app. dismd. 18 N.Y.2d 708, 274 N.Y.S.2d 144, 220 N.E.2d 793, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 65......
-
Brown v. Ellis
...cause of action assumption of risk is not a defense, and a lesser degree of proof on causation will suffice. Carroll v. Pellicio Bros., 44 Misc.2d 832, 255 N.Y.S.2d 771 (S.Ct. Nassau Co.1964), aff'd 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7, appeal dismissed, 18 N.Y.2d 708, 274 N.Y.S.2d 144, 220 N.E.2d......
-
McGee v. Adams Paper & Twine Co.
...sustained in fighting a fire which was started as a result of a violation of a fire preventive ordinance. (See Carroll v. Pellicio Bros., 44 Misc.2d 832, 255 N.Y.S.2d 771.) The plaintiff, Schmid, as a basis for a recovery under Section 205--a, argues here, that the 'evidence showed violatio......