Fewer v. Gerosa Crane Service Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fewer v. Gerosa Crane Service Co.

251 A.D. 858, 298 N.Y.S. 501, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7985

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

DecidedJune 25, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 858 (Fewer v. Gerosa Crane Service 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

Fewer v. Gerosa Crane Service Co., 251 A.D. 858, 298 N.Y.S. 501, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for death by wrongful act, neglect or default, no question is presented as to the negligence or contributory negligence, but the principal question at issue is, In whose employ was the man who operated the crane negligently? On the first trial plaintiff had a verdict, which was reversed on appeal on the ground that it was against the weight of evidence, finding that the operator was the employee of the defendant (248 App. Div. 621). On the new trial the same result was reached, and plaintiff had judgment against the defendant. The question presented was one of fact, and the evidence supports the verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for death by wrongful act, neglect or default, no question is presented as to the negligence or contributory negligence, but the principal question at issue is, In whose employ was the man who operated the crane negligently? On the first trial plaintiff had a verdict, which was reversed on appeal on the ground that it was against the weight of evidence, finding that the operator was the employee of the defendant (248 App. Div. 621). On the new trial the same result was reached, and plaintiff had judgment against the defendant. The question presented was one of fact, and the evidence supports the verdict. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 858, 298 N.Y.S. 501, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fewer-v-gerosa-crane-service-co-nyappdiv-1937.