Home/New York Court of Appeals/Bidetto v. New York City Housing Authority

Bidetto v. New York City Housing Authority

250 N.E.2d 735, 25 N.Y.2d 848, 303 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1172
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 250 N.E.2d 735 (Bidetto v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bidetto v. New York City Housing Authority, 250 N.E.2d 735, 25 N.Y.2d 848, 303 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1172 (N.Y. 1969).

Opinion

Memorandum. Decedent, a bricklayer, was injured fatally when bricks which his employer was placing on a floor above where he was working fell on him. He was building a wall and the bricks being placed were to be used as the wall went up. The open space which was to be filled in as the wall was constructed was not an area of common usage in the construction over which the owner retained control. Nor did the owner direct or control the work being done by decedent. The accident must be deemed to have been due to the manner in which decedent’s employer prosecuted the work and the negligence, if any, in its occurrence is not attributable to the owner; nor is the owner liable on the theory that it provided an unsafe place to work as the wall was being constructed (Wright v. Belt Assoc., 14 N Y 2d 129; Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., 13 N Y 2d 104; Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 301 N. Y. 182; Mullin v. Genesee County Elec. Light, Power & Gas Co., 202 N. Y. 275; Grant v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 20 A D 2d 48). The rule is succinctly summarized in Naso v. Wates & Co. (21 A D 2d 679, 680). The order should be reversed and the complaint dismissed without costs.

[850]*850Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur. Judge Burke dissents and votes to affirm upon the ground that a question of fact was presented for the jury’s consideration.

Order reversed and complaint dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Kaczmarek v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
884 F. Supp. 768 (W.D. New York, 1995)
Brust v. Estee Lauder Inc.
184 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Whitaker v. Norman
146 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.
90 Misc. 2d 911 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1977)
Tilkins v. City of Niagara Falls
52 A.D.2d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Dawson v. Diesel Construction Co.
51 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Iuliani v. Great Neck Sewer District
346 N.E.2d 547 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Petrassi v. Estate of Peter A. H. Jackson, Inc.
50 A.D.2d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Kappel v. Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp.
49 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Hite v. Maritime Overseas Corporation
380 F. Supp. 222 (E.D. Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 N.E.2d 735, 25 N.Y.2d 848, 303 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bidetto-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-ny-1969.