Crofoot v. Bloomer

New York Court of Appeals

Crofoot v. Bloomer

175 N.E.2d 832, 9 N.Y.2d 892

DecidedApril 27, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 175 N.E.2d 832 (Crofoot v. Bloomer) 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

Crofoot v. Bloomer, 175 N.E.2d 832, 9 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff in the primary action could recover only on the theory defendant erected a defective scaffold for plaintiff’s use which, if established, constituted active negligence. There was no indemnification agreement made by the contractor for the benefit of defendant that was couched in unequivocal terms. We pass upon no other question. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster.

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

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff in the primary action could recover only on the theory defendant erected a defective scaffold for plaintiff’s use which, if established, constituted active negligence. There was no indemnification agreement made by the contractor for the benefit of defendant that was couched in unequivocal terms. We pass upon no other question. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis, Burke and Foster.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 N.E.2d 832, 9 N.Y.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crofoot-v-bloomer-ny-1961.