De Vivo v. Dartwood Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Vivo v. Dartwood Realty Co.

33 A.D.2d 1022, 308 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5615

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 1022 (De Vivo v. Dartwood Realty 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

De Vivo v. Dartwood Realty Co., 33 A.D.2d 1022, 308 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 2, 1968 after a jury trial, in favor of defendants upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the entire case. Judgment affirmed insofar as it is in favor of defendant Monitor Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., without costs; and, as to defendant Dartwood Realty Co., Inc.,, judgment reversed, on the law, action severed, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the proof raised a question for the jury as to whether defendant Dartwood Realty Co., Inc., violated subdivision (i) of rule 23.3 of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23.3, subd. [i]). If it did, that would be some evidence of negligence on its part (Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp., 10 N Y 2d 20, 29). We further believe that on this proof there was no issue raised with respect to common-law negligence on the part of either Dartwood or its codefendant, Monitor Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 2, 1968 after a jury trial, in favor of defendants upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of the entire case. Judgment affirmed insofar as it is in favor of defendant Monitor Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., without costs; and, as to defendant Dartwood Realty Co., Inc.,, judgment reversed, on the law, action severed, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the proof raised a question for the jury as to whether defendant Dartwood Realty Co., Inc., violated subdivision (i) of rule 23.3 of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23.3, subd. [i]). If it did, that would be some evidence of negligence on its part (Conte v. Large Scale Development Corp., 10 N Y 2d 20, 29). We further believe that on this proof there was no issue raised with respect to common-law negligence on the part of either Dartwood or its codefendant, Monitor Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 1022, 308 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-vivo-v-dartwood-realty-co-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack