Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery
| Decision Date | 30 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | WALSH-FULLER-SLATTERY |
| Parties | , 196 N.E.2d 267 Thomas G. VISKOVICH, Appellant, v., a joint venture, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 16 A.D.2d 67, 225 N.Y.S.2d 100.
Employee of first subcontractor brought action against general contractor and owner for injuries sustained by the employee in a fall from a scaffold while working on a construction job. The general contractor and the owner relied on defense of release because of release which employee gave to second subcontractor.
The Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Louis J. Capozzoli, J., entered an order striking the affirmative defense of release after that defense had been tried separately before a jury, and the owner and general contractor appealed.
The Appellate Division, Stevens, J., reversed the order on the law and the facts, reinstated the affirmative defense of release, and dismissed the complaint, and held that general release given to second subcontractor was a release of all claims without reservation, and that such release created a bar to the action against the owner and general contractor.
The employee appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the Special and Trial Term properly submitted to the jury the question whether there was a mutual mistake of fact when the release was executed and that the jury's verdict was proper.
John J. Corcoran, Kew Gardens (Lillian E. Cuff, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
John J. O'Connor, New York City (James M. Gilleran, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrett v. United States
...as well." Id. Accord, Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery, 16 A.D.2d 67, 225 N.Y.S.2d 100 (1st Dep't 1962), aff'd, 13 N.Y.2d 1100, 246 N.Y.S.2d 632 (1963). This rule applies to the United States in FTCA actions. Rushford v. United States, supra, 204 F.2d at The court also must determine whet......
-
Simkin v. Blank
...favor on a motion to dismiss ( see Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery, 16 A.D.2d 67, 225 N.Y.S.2d 100 [1962], aff'd 13 N.Y.2d 1100, 246 N.Y.S.2d 632, 196 N.E.2d 267 [1963] [trial was held when the plaintiff alleged that state of facts assumed to exist at time of the parties' agreement did n......
-
Skluth v. United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc.
...with which a particular contract was made (see Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery, 16 A.D.2d 67, 225 N.Y.S.2d 100, affd 13 N.Y.2d 1100, 246 N.Y.S.2d 632, 196 N.E.2d 267), the absence of counsel is far less critical than the opportunity to consult counsel (see Cirillo v. Arco Chemical Co., 8......
-
Mangini v. McClurg
...future claims of previously unknown injuries (Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery,16 A.D.2d 67, 225 N.Y.S.2d 100, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1100, 246 N.Y.S.2d 632, 196 N.E.2d 267; Potter v. Guertze, 5 A.D.2d 924, 171 N.Y.S.2d 991; Yehle v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 267 App.Div. 301, 46 N.Y.S.2d 5, affd......