Tipaldi v. Riverside Mem'l Chapel, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1948 |
| Parties | Edmund TIPALDI, Respondent, v. RIVERSIDE MEMORIAL CHAPEL, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 273 App.Div. 414, 78 N.Y.S.2d 12.
Action by Edmund Tipaldi against Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc., and New York Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc. for injuries sustained when a plank fell from a canopy erected over a sidewalk in connection with construction of an addition to a funeral chapel owned by the first named defendant and operated by the second named defendant, wherein the defendants cross-complained against J. Alexander Stein, general contractor, and others, subcontractors.
The accident occurred while plaintiff was walking in front of the premises on a Sunday afternoon when no workmen were on the site. Although the general contractor did not perform the actual work of construction under its contract and sublet the several contracts for construction to subcontractors, it supervised the work and designated a construction superintendent for the job.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the trial court against the defendants and against J. Alexander Stein. A motion of the defendants for judgments over against J. Alexander Stein was denied. Verdict was in favor of the subcontractors. From the judgment in favor of plaintiff against the defendants and from an order denying the defendants' motion for judgment over against the defendant J. Alexander Stein, the defendants Riverside Memorial Chapel, and New York Riverside Memorial Chapel appealed; from judgment in favor of plaintiff against J. Alexander Stein, Inc., that defendant appealed. The Appellate Division held that the owner and operator of the property had a nondelegable duty toward pedestrians and that plaintiff properly recovered judgment against both the owner and operator and against the general contractor. The principal question considered by the Appellate Division however was whether the general contractor was obligated to indemnify the owner and operator. Judgment of the Appellate Division, 273 App.Div. 414, 78 N.Y.S.2d 12, affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiff but reversing the order denying motion for judgment over against the defendant J. Alexander Stein, Inc., and the Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc., and the New York Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc., and J. Alexander Stein, Inc., appeal. James H. Brassel, of New York City (Walter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salonia v. Samsol Homes, Inc.
...operation of law for the wrongful act' (McFall v Compagnie Maritime Belge [Lloyd Royal] S.A., 304 NY 314, 328 ; see, also, Tipaldi v Riverside Mem. Chapel, 298 NY 686 , affg 273 App Div 414 ). One who was himself actively negligent could not, of course, receive the benefit of this doctrine;......
-
D'Ambrosio v. City of New York
...for the wrongful act" (McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge S. A., 304 N.Y. 314, 328, 107 N.E.2d 463; see, also, Tipaldi v. Riverside Mem. Chapel, 298 N.Y. 686, 82 N.E.2d 585, affg. 273 App.Div. 414, 78 N.Y.S.2d 12). One who was himself actively negligent could not, of course, receive the ben......
-
Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
...grounds 58 N.Y.2d 253, 460 N.Y.S.2d 774, 447 N.E.2d 717; Tipaldi v. Riverside Mem. Chapel, 273 App.Div. 414, 78 N.Y.S.2d 12, affd. 298 N.Y. 686, 82 N.E.2d 585; Restatement [Second] of Torts § Implied indemnity is frequently employed in favor of one who is vicariously liable for the tort of ......
-
McDermott v. City of New York
...the tort-feasor who was "actively" negligent (e. g., Tipaldi v. Riverside Mem. Chapel, 273 App.Div. 414, 78 N.Y.S.2d 12, affd. 298 N.Y. 686, 82 N.E.2d 585).5 Respondent repeatedly asserts that the city seeks recovery for breach of warranty. This is inaccurate. As discussed, the city is asse......