Claybourne v. Guaranty Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claybourne v. Guaranty Trust Co.

10 A.D.2d 47, 196 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11549

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 47 (Claybourne v. Guaranty Trust 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

Claybourne v. Guaranty Trust Co., 10 A.D.2d 47, 196 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

Memorandum by the Court.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of dismissing the complaint against the subcontractor defendant Central Cement Finishing Co., Inc., and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of plaintiff-respondent against defendant-appellant John Lowry, Inc., and with costs in favor of defendant-appellant Central Cement Finishing Co., Inc. against plaintiff-respondent. On this record it is undisputed that the subcontractor had completed its work at least four days before the accident and that its work had been accepted by the general contractor. Any obligation to guard the protruding rods then fell upon the general contractor since at the time the subcontractor left the work the cement had not yet hardened sufficiently and any bending of the rods at such time was not feasible. It was also undisputed that between the general contractor and the subcontractor the cement company’s work required that it leave the rods protruding and upright. It was also undisputed that between them the time interval which would follow before further structure would be placed upon the concrete pad was entirely within the discretion and knowledge of the general contractor. Consequently, there was no evidence to show that the subcontractor was guilty of any fault.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of dismissing the complaint against the subcontractor defendant Central Cement Finishing Co., Inc., and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of plaintiff-respondent against defendant-appellant John Lowry, Inc., and with costs in favor of defendant-appellant Central Cement Finishing Co., Inc. against plaintiff-respondent. On this record it is undisputed that the subcontractor had completed its work at least four days before the accident and that its work had been accepted by the general contractor. Any obligation to guard the protruding rods then fell upon the general contractor since at the time the subcontractor left the work the cement had not yet hardened sufficiently and any bending of the rods at such time was not feasible. It was also undisputed that between the general contractor and the subcontractor the cement company’s work required that it leave the rods protruding and upright. It was also undisputed that between them the time interval which would follow before further structure would be placed upon the concrete pad was entirely within the discretion and knowledge of the general contractor. Consequently, there was no evidence to show that the subcontractor was guilty of any fault.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 47, 196 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claybourne-v-guaranty-trust-co-nyappdiv-1960.