Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre
| Decision Date | 14 February 1967 |
| Parties | , 225 N.E.2d 217 Ernest CARROLL, Respondent, v. ROMAN CHTHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE, New York, Defendant, and Pellicio Bros., Inc., Appellant, and a third-party action. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7.
Anthony R. D'Andrea, New York City (James M. Gilleran, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Rothenberg & Beck, Mineola, for respondent.
Volunteer fireman brought action against diocese of church and corporation which demolished building for diocese, and then set fire to pile of rubble, for injuries sustained by the fireman in fighting fire when fire in rubble got out of control. The action was discontinued against the diocese. Recovery was sought under Section 205-a of the General Municipal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 24, imposing liability for injuries sustained by a fireman in an accident which occurs directly or indirectly as result of any neglect, omission, wilful, or culpable negligence of any person or persons failing to comply with the requirements of any of the ordinances of federal, state, county, village, town or city governments, on the person or persons guilty of such noncompliance.
There was evidence that the corporation set fire to a pile of debris which remained after demolition of building, and that when the blaze reached a height of up to 40 feet, the fire alarm was sounded, and that the fire department responded thereto, and that during the course of fighting the fire the volunteer fireman climbed to the top of the pile of the debris in order to force hose lines down into it, and that the pile gave way beneath him and he fell. The corporation had concededly not received permission to set the fire from a town building inspector as required by smoke ordinance of the town. The jury answered in the affirmative a question submitted to it whether the fire was such as would render the corporation also guilty of violating a fire prevention ordinance of the county prohibiting an open fire which may endanger other property.
The Supreme Court, Trial Term, Nassau County, Joseph A. Suozzi, J., 44 Misc.2d 832, 255 N.Y.S.2d 771, ordered a new trial confined to question of damages when the volunteer fireman refused to consent to reduction of damages.
The Appellate Division, 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7, entered an order which affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenavan v. City of New York
...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.2d 626, 225 N.E.2d 217 [violation of ordinance prohibiting bonfires]; Nykanen v. City of New York, 14 N.Y.2d 697, 250 N.Y.S.2d 53, 199 N.E.2d 155, affg.......
-
Grynbal v. Grynbal
...28 A.D.2d 1154, 284 N.Y.S.2d 190; Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 658, 278 N.Y.S.2d 626; Seidel v. Maynard, 279 App.Div. 706, 108 N.Y.S.2d 450; Lehr v. City of New York, 30 Misc.2d 953, 219 N.Y.S.2d 308, affd. 16 A.D.2d 7......
-
June v. Laris
...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 658, 278 N.Y.S.2d 626, 225 N.E.2d 217) and for violations of Highway Law requirements for prompt removal of obstructions and of rules governing placement of uti......
-
Rutzen v. Monroe County Long Term Care Program, Inc.
... ... "fringe" benefits which are not (see Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, 26 ... ...
-
Demonstrative evidence
...to jury during summation); Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre , 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7 (2d Dept. 1966), af ’d 19 N.Y.2d 658, 278 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1967). However, most courts do not and should not allow reference during closing argument to material that has not been fo......
-
Demonstrative evidence
...to jury during summation); Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre , 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7 (2d Dept. 1966), af ’d 19 N.Y.2d 658, 278 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1967). However, most courts do not and should not allow reference during closing argument to material that has not been fo......
-
Summation
...69, 74 N.E.3d 639 (2017); Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre , 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7 (2d Dept. 1966), aff ’d, 19 N.Y.2d 658, 278 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1967). The court may also allow a jury to view damage summary sheets used during summation during its deliberations. Wyli......
-
Summation
...and are not misleading. Carroll v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre , 26 A.D.2d 552, 271 N.Y.S.2d 7 (2d Dept. 1966), af ’d 19 N.Y.2d 658, 278 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1967); People v. Anderson , 29 N.Y.3d 69, 74 N.E.3d 639 (2017). he court may also allow a jury to view damage summary sheets ......