Mullery v. Ro-Mill Const. Corp.

Decision Date15 October 1981
Docket NumberRO-MILL
Citation444 N.Y.S.2d 912,54 N.Y.2d 888,429 N.E.2d 419
Parties, 429 N.E.2d 419 Theresa MULLERY, Individually and as Executrix of Michael Mullery, Deceased, Appellant, v.CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 76 A.D.2d 802, 429 N.Y.S.2d 200, should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that court for review of the facts (CPLR 5613). Under the charge given by the trial court the jury was instructed to determine whether the decedent was so intoxicated as to be rendered incapable of understanding or appreciating the danger which confronted him. In view of this charge, to which no exception was taken, and on the evidence adduced at trial, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the decedent was contributorily negligent.

COOKE, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Muhaymin v. Negron
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Febrero 1982
    ...its verdict stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection." (CPLR § 4110-b; Mullery v. Ro-Mill Construction Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 888, 444 N.Y.S.2d 912, 429 N.E.2d 419 rev'g. 76 A.D.2d 802, 429 N.Y.S.2d 200; Passantino v. Con Edison, 54 N.Y.2d 840, 444 N.Y.S.2d 59, 428 ......
  • Sarracino v. Martinez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 31 Enero 1994
    ...Mullery v. Ro-Mill Constr. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 802, 429 N.Y.S.2d 200, 201-02 (App.Div.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 54 N.Y.2d 888, 444 N.Y.S.2d 912, 429 N.E.2d 419 (1981). We believe that Defendant's reliance on the stated proposition is misplaced. The idea of a special duty of care owed into......
  • Allen v. Westchester County
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 12 Agosto 1985
    ...A.D.2d 39, 43, 432 N.Y.S.2d 103; Delamater v. Kimmerle, 104 A.D.2d 242, 484 N.Y.S.2d 213). The case of Mullery v. Ro-Mill Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 888, 444 N.Y.S.2d 912, 429 N.E.2d 419, does not compel a contrary result. The Court of Appeals therein merely concluded, without passing on the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT