Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp.

259 A.D. 302, 19 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6127

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N. Y. 413; Hudson v. Church of Holy Trinity, 250 id. 513.) The instructions by the defendant’s superintendent to the plaintiff on the day preceding the accident to place the mash in the boiler room of the cellar did not constitute an assurance to the plaintiff that he might proceed there safely in complete darkness and without guidance.

[303]*303The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N. Y. 413; Hudson v. Church of Holy Trinity, 250 id. 513.) The instructions by the defendant’s superintendent to the plaintiff on the day preceding the accident to place the mash in the boiler room of the cellar did not constitute an assurance to the plaintiff that he might proceed there safely in complete darkness and without guidance.

[303]*303The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp., 259 A.D. 302, 19 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

259 A.D. 302 (Czesznek v. Ruffy Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related