Fiore v. General Railway Signal Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fiore v. General Railway Signal Co.

249 A.D. 708, 292 N.Y.S. 704, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5548

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

DecidedNovember 11, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 708 (Fiore v. General Railway Signal 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

Fiore v. General Railway Signal Co., 249 A.D. 708, 292 N.Y.S. 704, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: As to assumption of risk, see Gombert v. Mc Kay (201 N. Y. 27) and Fitzwater v. Warren (206id. 355); as to contributory negligence, see Marino v. Lehmaier (173 N. Y. 530) and Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp. (237 id. 250). The case of Karpeles v. Heine (227 N. Y. 74) is not of assistance to the appellant for the reason that in that ease there was an absolute prohibition in the statute against the employment of the plaintiff, who was under sixteen years of age, thus excluding any possibility of contributory negligence. All concur. (The order denies motion to strike out affirmative defenses in the answer.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Bdgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: As to assumption of risk, see Gombert v. Mc Kay (201 N. Y. 27) and Fitzwater v. Warren (206id. 355); as to contributory negligence, see Marino v. Lehmaier (173 N. Y. 530) and Maleeny v. Standard Shipbuilding Corp. (237 id. 250). The case of Karpeles v. Heine (227 N. Y. 74) is not of assistance to the appellant for the reason that in that ease there was an absolute prohibition in the statute against the employment of the plaintiff, who was under sixteen years of age, thus excluding any possibility of contributory negligence. All concur. (The order denies motion to strike out affirmative defenses in the answer.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Bdgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 708, 292 N.Y.S. 704, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiore-v-general-railway-signal-co-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack