Gonzalez v. Partition Servicing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Partition Servicing Co.

22 A.D.2d 673, 253 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2956

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 673 (Gonzalez v. Partition Servicing 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

Gonzalez v. Partition Servicing Co., 22 A.D.2d 673, 253 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial of this personal injury action unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs to appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiff, a truck driver’s helper, was employed by a rubbish removal company which had been engaged by defendant, a dealer in partitions, on this and prior occasions to remove glass and other debris from its premises. Plaintiff testified that while maneuvering a large piece of glass so that he could throw it out of a window onto his truck it broke without making contact with any object and cut his arm. There was no evidence that the glass pane was defective. Plaintiff’s injuries did not result from the failure of defendant to furnish him with a safe place to work or in failing to keep its premises safe. The injuries occurred because of the prosecution of the work itself as undertaken by plaintiff’s employer, hired as an independent contractor by defendant. Defendant did not direct the manner in which the work should be performed, and it exercised no. supervision over the performance. Under the circumstances defendant is not responsible if plaintiff, his coemployee or his employer failed to adopt a proper method for doing the work (Zuechelli V. City Constr. Co., 4 N Y 2d 52; Iaeono v. Frank & Frank Contr. Co., 259 N. Y. 377; Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539). Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial of this personal injury action unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs to appellant, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiff, a truck driver’s helper, was employed by a rubbish removal company which had been engaged by defendant, a dealer in partitions, on this and prior occasions to remove glass and other debris from its premises. Plaintiff testified that while maneuvering a large piece of glass so that he could throw it out of a window onto his truck it broke without making contact with any object and cut his arm. There was no evidence that the glass pane was defective. Plaintiff’s injuries did not result from the failure of defendant to furnish him with a safe place to work or in failing to keep its premises safe. The injuries occurred because of the prosecution of the work itself as undertaken by plaintiff’s employer, hired as an independent contractor by defendant. Defendant did not direct the manner in which the work should be performed, and it exercised no. supervision over the performance. Under the circumstances defendant is not responsible if plaintiff, his coemployee or his employer failed to adopt a proper method for doing the work (Zuechelli V. City Constr. Co., 4 N Y 2d 52; Iaeono v. Frank & Frank Contr. Co., 259 N. Y. 377; Olsen v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 10 A D 2d 539). Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 673, 253 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-partition-servicing-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack