Waddle v. E.G. Snyder Co., Inc.

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtBefore THOMPSON
CitationWaddle v. E.G. Snyder Co., Inc., 540 N.Y.S.2d 489, 149 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Decision Date24 April 1989
PartiesArthur W. WADDLE, et al., Appellants, v. E.G. SNYDER COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

Crane, Wolfson, Roberts & Greller, Poughkeepsie (William G. Crane, of counsel; Stacy P. Parsons on the brief), for appellants.

Moran, Spiegel, Pergament, Brown & Basso, Poughkeepsie (Jonathan D. Katz, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, KUNZEMAN and SPATT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated December 3, 1987, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On December 6, 1983, at approximately 8:00 A.M., the plaintiff Arthur Waddle fell backward and hit his head on a pavement when he stepped on two cement blocks serving as temporary steps to enter a trailer the defendant was using as an office at a construction site. Mr. Waddle was the coordinator for the owner of the site and acted as a liaison officer between the owner and the various contractors working on the site. Concededly, therefore, he was expected to enter the office trailer and have meetings with the defendant's employees.

Testimony was adduced at the trial that the office trailer had been rented to the defendant and had been delivered without any stairs the day before the accident. The defendant's job superintendent had immediately ordered a carpenter to build some stairs for the trailer, since the bottom of the door was some 30 to 36 inches above ground level. In the interim, the job superintendent stacked two sixteen-by-eight-inch cement blocks to be used as a step. When the job superintendent saw Mr. Waddle attempting to enter the office trailer he warned him to "Be careful of the cement blocks", but almost simultaneously with his comments, Mr. Waddle began to fall backwards.

The plaintiffs' appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant after a jury verdict in its favor. They allege that the trial court committed errors in its charge to the jury. We find that the plaintiffs never relied at the trial on any violati of the New York Labor Law. In fact the first time they have mentioned Labor Law § 200 is on this appeal. Thus, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury with respect to Labor Law § 200 has not been preserved for...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Gould Investors, LP v. General Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 15, 1990
    ... ... See Lund's, Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 870 F.2d 840, 844 (2d Cir.1989). The court must accept ... ...
  • Morrissey v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 27, 1995
    ...485 N.Y.S.2d 523, 474 N.E.2d 1191; Up-Front Inds. v. U.S. Inds., 63 N.Y.2d 1004, 484 N.Y.S.2d 505, 473 N.E.2d 733; Waddle v. Snyder Co., 149 A.D.2d 696, 540 N.Y.S.2d 489). In any event, the contention that the trial court's charge was improper is without merit. The pretrial statements made ......
  • Colon v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 1, 1997
    ...v. Salerno, 155 A.D.2d 523, 547 N.Y.S.2d 581; deGast v. Livingston, 144 A.D.2d 332, 333, 533 N.Y.S.2d 779; Waddle v. E.G. Snyder Co., 149 A.D.2d 696, 697, 540 N.Y.S.2d 489). In any event, the charge as a whole sufficiently instructed the jury as to the law (see, Scandell v. Salerno, supra; ......
  • 366 Fourth Street Corp. v. Foxfire Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 24, 1989