Garlichs v. Empire State Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garlichs v. Empire State Building Corp.

2 A.D.2d 750, 153 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4796

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 750 (Garlichs v. Empire State Building Corp.) 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

Garlichs v. Empire State Building Corp., 2 A.D.2d 750, 153 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondent and against appellant. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, vif»i costs, and complaint dismissed. Respondent is a professional window [751]*751cleaner employed by a window-cleaning concern. While washing windows in appellant’s building, he injured his back trying to open a window which was stuck. Respondent testified that he used just ordinary strength when he tried to open this window. Moreover, it is undisputed that he had been instructed by appellant not to open windows which were stuck, but to notify the building maintenance office when he came upon any. Since it was not part o£ respondent’s work to open such a window, it cannot be said that appellant failed to furnish him with a safe place to work. Nor can it be said that appellant was negligent in failing to anticipate that respondent might injure himself by using “ ordinary strength ” to open a window. Having voluntarily undertaken to do something which was not part of his employment and which, moreover, he had been instructed not to do, respondent may not subject appellant to liability for the injury thereby sustained (cf. Shields v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R.R. Co., 133 N. Y. 557; Cullen v. National Sheet Metal Roofing Co., 114 N. Y. 45). Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of respondent and against appellant. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, vif»i costs, and complaint dismissed. Respondent is a professional window [751]*751cleaner employed by a window-cleaning concern. While washing windows in appellant’s building, he injured his back trying to open a window which was stuck. Respondent testified that he used just ordinary strength when he tried to open this window. Moreover, it is undisputed that he had been instructed by appellant not to open windows which were stuck, but to notify the building maintenance office when he came upon any. Since it was not part o£ respondent’s work to open such a window, it cannot be said that appellant failed to furnish him with a safe place to work. Nor can it be said that appellant was negligent in failing to anticipate that respondent might injure himself by using “ ordinary strength ” to open a window. Having voluntarily undertaken to do something which was not part of his employment and which, moreover, he had been instructed not to do, respondent may not subject appellant to liability for the injury thereby sustained (cf. Shields v. New York Central & Hudson Riv. R.R. Co., 133 N. Y. 557; Cullen v. National Sheet Metal Roofing Co., 114 N. Y. 45). Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 750, 153 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garlichs-v-empire-state-building-corp-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack