Seigel v. Prima Concrete Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1967 |
| Parties | Arthur SEIGEL et al., Appellants, v. PRIMA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Defendants, Long Island National Bank of Hicksville, and Alpat Construction Co., Inc., Respondent-Appellant et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before BRENNAN, Acting P.J., and RABIN, HOPKINS, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 26, 1965, modified, on the law, by (1) striking out so much of its first decretal paragraph as dismissed the complaints as against defendant Long Island National Bank of Hicksville and so much of its second decretal paragraph as dismissed said defendant's cross complaints (deemed third-party complaints) against defendants Stanley Miller and Great Plains Shopping, Inc., and (2) severing plaintiff's cause against defendant Long Island National Bank of Hicksville and the latter's cross complaint insofar as it is against defendants Stanley Miller and Great Plains Shopping, Inc. and granting a new trial as to said severed cause and cross complaint, with costs to abide the event. As so modified, judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs. No questions of fact have been considered.
In this consolidated action to recover for injuries suffered when plaintiffs, employees of a general contractor, entered a bank vault in which an explosion occurred because of an alleged concentration therein of propane gas, plaintiffs' complaints were dismissed at the end of their case after testimony and an offer of proof had been given. In our opinion, a jury could have found that for approximately sixteen hours between the late afternoon of November 20th and the early morning of November 21, 1956, the defendant Bank had possession and control of the bank building, construction of which had almost been completed. The jury could have hurther found that the Bank knew that portable heater units using propane gas had been located in the building for use by paint and tile contractors of the Bank and that one such unit had been placed in the bank vault, the door of which had been closed during this sixteen-hour period. Finally, the jury could have found that, contrary to an alleged custom and practice, the Bank failed to inspect the building's premises during this sixteen-hour period to determine whether a dangerous condition had arisen from the use of the heaters, and that, had such an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monroe v. City of New York
...a safe place to work encompasses the duty to make reasonable inspections to detect dangerous conditions (Seigel v. Prima Concrete Constr. Corp., 27 A.D.2d 946, 947, 279 N.Y.S.2d 95, 97; Century Ind. Co. v. Arnold, 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 531, 534). At best, the city made only a cursory inspection ......
-
Conti v. Pettibone Companies, Inc.
...Ave Corp., 49 A.D.2d 578, 370 N.Y.S.2d 169 Buonassisi v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 43 A.D.2d 701, 350 N.Y.S.2d 5 Seigel v. Prima Concrete Const. Corp., 27 A.D.2d 946, 279 N.Y.S.2d 95 Those parties would clearly be considered agents of the owner under the operative amended Unfortunately, judicial......
-
Rusin v. Jackson Heights Shopping Center, Inc.
...Bank, 10 A.D.2d 539, 543, 205 N.Y.S.2d 60, 64, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 829, 215 N.Y.S.2d 773, 175 N.E.2d 350; Seigel v. Prima Concrete Const. Corp. et al., 27 A.D.2d 946, 947, 279 N.Y.S.2d 95, 97; Wohlfron v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 238 App.Div. 463, 465, 265 N.Y.S. 18, 20, affd. 263 N.Y. 547, 18......
-
Gasperino v. Larsen Ford, Inc.
...on the premises." Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., 11 A.D.2d 902, 203 N.Y.S.2d 382 (4th Dept.1960). Accord, Seigel v. Prima Concrete Construction Corp., 27 A.D.2d 946, 279 N.Y.S.2d 95 (1967). Although it is clear that the courts of New York have constantly construed § 200 as a codification of the ......