Bernstein v. El-Mar Painting & Decorating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernstein v. El-Mar Painting & Decorating Co.

18 A.D.2d 687, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6348

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 17, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 687 (Bernstein v. El-Mar Painting & Decorating Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernstein v. El-Mar Painting & Decorating Co., 18 A.D.2d 687, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an negligence action by a tenant in a multiple dwelling house against its owners, the defendants Berman, and against the defendant corporation, a painting contractor whose employees were engaged in painting the house, to recover damages for personal injury sustained by the tenant when he fell from the contractor’s scaffold, which was so suspended in front of the house as partially to obstruct the front-door entrance, and which one of the contractor’s employees told the tenant he could use to gain access to the house, the defendants appeal as follows from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 16, 1962 after trial: (1) upon a jury’s verdict (as reduced by plaintiff’s stipulation) in favor of the plaintiff, against all the defendants; and (2) upon the decision of the court in favor of the defendants Berman and against the defendant corporation upon the cross claims against said corporation asserted by the Bermans in their answer, pursuant to section 264 of the Civil Practice Act: (a) the defendant corporation appeals from the whole judgment; and (b) the defendants Berman appeal from so much of the judgment as awarded $25,420.13 to plaintiff against them. On both appeals: Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to plaintiff against all the defendants, and with one bill of costs to the defendants Berman against the defendant corporation. Ho opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an negligence action by a tenant in a multiple dwelling house against its owners, the defendants Berman, and against the defendant corporation, a painting contractor whose employees were engaged in painting the house, to recover damages for personal injury sustained by the tenant when he fell from the contractor’s scaffold, which was so suspended in front of the house as partially to obstruct the front-door entrance, and which one of the contractor’s employees told the tenant he could use to gain access to the house, the defendants appeal as follows from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 16, 1962 after trial: (1) upon a jury’s verdict (as reduced by plaintiff’s stipulation) in favor of the plaintiff, against all the defendants; and (2) upon the decision of the court in favor of the defendants Berman and against the defendant corporation upon the cross claims against said corporation asserted by the Bermans in their answer, pursuant to section 264 of the Civil Practice Act: (a) the defendant corporation appeals from the whole judgment; and (b) the defendants Berman appeal from so much of the judgment as awarded $25,420.13 to plaintiff against them. On both appeals: Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to plaintiff against all the defendants, and with one bill of costs to the defendants Berman against the defendant corporation. Ho opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 687, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-v-el-mar-painting-decorating-co-nyappdiv-1962.